Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the course of preparations for today's Adjournment debate, in which hon. Members can raise various matters, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) have been most concerned about the deficit of East London and the City health authority. In attempting to compare that deficit—of over £30 million—with those of other district health authorities, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Health.
That question has been answered and printed in Hansard this morning. I shall not read out the question, but it was about deficits, which is a very important matter for the health service across the country. The answer states:
The information requested is based on estimates subject to revision. It is not suitable for publication."—[Official Report, 22 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 121.]
Every hon. Member is familiar with answers containing such expressions as "not centrally held", "disproportionate costs" and "placed in the Library", but the answer "estimates subject to revision"—which is given all the time in response to questions on finance, taxation and public expenditure—is not a reason for withholding information.
Furthermore, the phrase
It is not suitable for publication
is an addition to the canon of unhappy excuses that sometimes comes from the Executive.
Madam Speaker, what are the appropriate means by which I can draw that matter to the attention of others? If the practice is more widespread, perhaps my raising this point of order will encourage other hon. Members who have received similar answers to take similar action.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order, and I have seen the question and answer to which he refers. As he knows, however, the Speaker is not responsible for the content of ministerial answers. There are many ways in which hon. Members may pursue what they consider to be unsatisfactory answers, such as, for example, in Adjournment debates or by raising the issue with the relevant Select Committee. It is my understanding that the Select Committee on Public Service is currently inquiring into ministerial accountability. The hon. Member might help that Committee with its inquiries if he were to put the matter to it.

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising today, do adjourn till Monday 14 October.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: There are three urgent and important issues I want briefly to address. Each of them merits a ministerial response before the House rises for the summer recess.
First, I want to raise Lord Rix's moving plea, in a letter to the Leader of the House, for a fair wind for his Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill. His Bill won unanimous support in the Lords and I was delighted to be asked to sponsor it in this House. In doing so I have the support of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, large and small, none of whom saw any justification whatever for the blocking of the Bill by a Government Whip when I presented it for Second Reading on 12 July. That our procedures can allow that to happen where a Bill has already been unanimously approved in another place is surely wrong and should be immediately reviewed.
While I cannot now discuss its terms, the Bill, as its title implies, is one to help disabled people and their carers who, hugely to their detriment, never go beyond their own homes. As Lord Rix pointed out in his letter to the Leader of the House, of the 130,000 adults and children with severe learning disabilities living with their families, four out of five never receive short-term care provision to relieve the pressure of full-time care in the family home.
All I will say today, as Lord Rix did in other words in seeking the right hon. Gentleman's help, is that this is bad for the disabled person, bad for carers and bad for the taxpayer.
As is accepted in other legislation on disability—not least that which I had the good fortune to bring to this House, both as a private Member and as a Minister—any failure to give the disabled person and the carer a break hastens the day when it will no longer be possible to cope at home, making long-term institutional care the only option at far greater cost to the taxpayer than that of facilitating short-term breaks. Carers may be among the most admired people in this country, but they are also among the most neglected. Helping them is not only a moral and social priority: it also makes economic sense.
While it appears on today's Order Paper only as a remaining order, the Government have it within their power to let Lord Rix's excellent Bill through this House before we adjourn for the recess. It is about a small step forward that, in Lord Rix's words, would
add a touch of compassion and understanding to the Government's record.
He might justifiably have added that, for the Government to refuse to let so uncontroversial a measure through this House, would be both self-defeating and inhumane.
The issue is not one that divides one side of the House from the other. The divide is now one between the Government and both sides of the House, and I implore the right hon. Gentleman to do all he can to help the Bill forward. Meanwhile I must inform him that, if he is not able to assist its supporters today, I shall be seeking to discharge my commitment to the Bill in full by bringing


it back to the Order Paper of this House on every remaining sitting day of the current parliamentary Session.
I turn now, again briefly, to the very deep sense of injustice that persists among people with haemophilia and their families. The tragic fate of three brothers explains why they are so aggrieved. All three had haemophilia. Two were infected with HIV by contaminated NHS blood transfusions and died of AIDS-related illnesses. The third brother was infected with hepatitis C by NHS blood products and died of liver failure. The two brothers infected with HIV received help from the Macfarlane Trust, funded by the Government, and were able to make some provision for their families. But their brother, infected with hepatitis C, went to his grave having been refused that help. He was unable to make any provision for his family.
All three brothers had become terminally ill and died from the same cause: contaminated NHS blood products. But one was denied help given to the other two brothers by a Government who provided £70 million for people infected with HIV and set up the Macfarlane Trust to give them continuing support. The Government accepted their moral responsebility in the case of HIV infection. They have the same responsibility now in the HCV cases.
It is argued that compensating those infected with HCV would take money away from patient care in the NHS. To say that is to get not just the wrong end of the stick, but the wrong stick. For the payments made in the HIV cases, including those to the dependants of people who subsequently died because of AIDS-related illnesses, came from contingency moneys, which is what the Haemophilia Society is asking for now for the hepatitis C victims. The society simply wants the terms of reference of the Macfarlane Trust to be extended to include them.
Measured against the pain and suffering endured, the claim is an extremely modest one. Hepatitis C attacks the liver and is life-threatening. Current medical opinion is that up to 80 per cent. of those infected will develop chronic liver disease. Of these, some 20 per cent. will develop severe liver problems such as cirrhosis or liver cancer. More than 50 of those infected by contaminated blood products have already died and the death rate is accelerating.
This further tragedy in the haemophilia community dates back to before 1986 when heat treatment was introduced to end the contamination of NHS blood products. But by then 3,100 people with haemophilia alone had been infected with hepatitis C. In recognition of the scale of the problem, an all-party early-day motion was tabled, in my name, urging parity of treatment for people infected with HIV or HCV. The motion has now been signed by more than 260 right hon. and hon. Members, a majority of all Members of Parliament who are free to sign such motions. As the list of signatories shows, the issue is treated not as one of right and left but of right and wrong.
In none of the many campaigns in which I have been closely involved in this House in my 32 years here have I had so strong a sense that it should not be necessary to campaign to right such an obvious wrong. The

Government know we are right and that our campaign is entirely free from party animus. They know, too, that if given the nod by Ministers, this House would settle the issue within an hour. That hour could and should be found before the new parliamentary Session begins. If there is no commitment today to finding it and the campaign has to go on, then go on it will until justice is achieved for people who simply want equitable treatment.
I turn now, thirdly and finally, to an issue of urgent concern to all long-term sick and disabled people and those who work with and for them. I refer to the implications of a judgment given by the Court of Appeal in what the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—describes as
one of the most important cases to date on the rights of disabled people to community care services.
The court ruled that, when a local authority has agreed that a disabled person has needs for care services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the authority must meet those needs and cannot take its own budgetary constraints into consideration. This landmark ruling was given in a judicial review judgment against Gloucestershire county council in relation to its treatment of a disabled pensioner, Michael Barry, in withdrawing home care services from him, among 1,500 other disabled people in the county, claiming that a Government squeeze on funds was responsible for the cuts.
The Court of Appeal's judgment, as John Keep of RADAR who played such an admirable role in helping Michael Barry to achieve the judicial review has reminded me, is totally in line with the guidance given to me as the Minister for Disabled People about the legal effect of section 2 of theAct.
I set out that guidance in this House, for the information of right hon. and hon. Members and local authorities, making it crystal clear that to reduce or withdraw a service under the section without diminution in need, was plainly unlawful. That is what the Court of Appeal has now ruled and it is, in my view as the author of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, urgently necessary for Ministers to issue guidance to local authorities about the implications for them of the court's ruling.
Clearly, service users whose needs have been assessed under the Act now have an undoubted right to have those needs provided for, and many thousands of disabled people up and down the country who had their services withdrawn or reduced for financial reasons are now entitled to have them restored. And they must quickly be identified and informed of their rights and entitlements. That there should ever have been any misunderstanding about the mandatory effect of the Act after my statement to the House is all the more disturbing when one learns that the legal guidance given to me as Minister was repeated by their legal advisers to all my successors in the post over the past 17 years.
The essential need now, however, is to ensure that no local authority is left in any doubt about its responsibilities as decided by the Court of Appeal. The right hon. Gentleman, whose genuine commitment to disabled people has so often been expressed, in opposition and government alike, fully appreciates the urgency of the call I am making to his ministerial colleagues on this issue and he needs no reminding of its importance to chronically sick and disabled people all over Britain.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be extremely brief. There is an element of continuity in the events to which I shall refer. I spoke in the Adjournment debate before the Easter recess in 1995 on the subject of Bart's, and I wish to return briefly to that subject. I shall dwell only on that single issue.
Some 30,000 people in south Hackney and south Islington, as well as my constituents in the City of London, have been adversely affected by the proposed move of Bart's to the Whitechapel site. Although the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to East London and the City health authority, it is ironic that in 1993–94 Camden and Islington used more general medical beds at Bart's. That also has some relevance to present circumstances.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a single question at the end of my speech, so he does not need to take elaborate notes of the events that I wish to place on record. The easiest way of describing events since late 1995 and early 1996 is to quote the first two paragraphs of a letter from the two relevant community health councils—Islington and City and Hackney—to the Secretary of State on 22 April this year:
Just over a year ago the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's Hospital closed. Assurances were given in writing by East London and City Health Authority, which agreed to the closure, that general practitioners would have direct access to the local hospital for their medical patients. In reality this has proved extremely difficult with obstacles being put in their way whenever they have attempted to get people admitted. This has led to people from south Islington, south Hackney and the City being sent down to the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel where they have had to wait sometimes for many hours before being admitted and in some cases transferred back to Bart's for admission.
In the autumn City & Hackney CHC learned from unofficial sources that there were plans to close the general medical beds at Bart's at the beginning of February 1996 so terminating entirely the services available to local people. This was confirmed just before Christmas. The enclosed letter,"—
which I shall not quote—
objecting in the strongest terms to the proposed bed closures, was sent to the General Manager of East London and City Health Authority. These closures had not been consulted on and were contrary to the agreement that the Health Authority had made with the Royal Hospitals Trust following its decision in March 1995 to go ahead with the plans set out in its consultation document, Health Services for the Future. The Royal Hospitals Trust maintained it was quite safe to close the beds because there had been so few admissions over the past 12 months. The reasons why are explained above.
There was then a two-month gap before the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), replied on 18 June 1996, with what was an essentially procedural answer on the subject of consultation. He did not dwell on the substance of the letter. I fear that the absence of any reference to its substance did nothing for morale either at Bart's or in the area to which I referred, and that is a subject on which I have commented before.
No doubt, cost has played a role. There are rumours that the special trustees at Bart's are being pressed for any money that can be used to help the Royal Hospitals trust. There is a degree of irony in that, as the conventional wisdom was that the backstop of the special trustees had previously allowed Bart's to get into lax financial ways.
That was clearly a belief in the Department of Health, as my right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for National Heritage, made clear in comment after comment to me in 1992–93 before Bart's took itself in hand so rigorously and effectively.
It is, however, cost pressure that I want primarily to raise as a matter that should detain the House from adjourning until it is settled. The matter is urgent because there are rumours that the Government would like to sign the private finance initiative contracts relating to the hospital in Whitechapel in October, which may well be before the House returns.
My question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, of which I have given him brief notice, is whether there have been any modifications—either upwards or downwards—in the cost stated in the outline business plan submitted by the Royal Hospitals trust in 1994 and approved by the Secretary of State for Health in 1995 in the invitation to bid for the private finance initiative and, if so, what are the percentage changes. My right hon. Friend will recognise the significance of that query from his past service in the Department of Health.
A final irony is that, early in July, I asked the parliamentary doctor for an appointment before the House rose. The only appointment available was at noon today. We NHS patients take opportunities and imperatives when they are offered to us. If it should prevent me from being present in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, I apologise. I also hope to be present when my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) raises the subject of D'Oyly Carte, a cause with which I am also associated.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Just before the parliamentary recess, or what my brother-in-law persists in calling the parliamentary recession, we have the opportunity either to deal with the particulars—and we have heard important particulars from the previous two hon. Members who have spoken—or to speak in more general terms. I shall turn to the latter and reflect on what one may call the state of the nation as the Government stagger with great relief to the recess, having lost a number of Ministers on the way.
The Government's major concern is to survive. We have endured the politics of survival for some considerable time and that is not in the interests of the country. Therefore, it is to the state of the nation that I shall address one or two remarks and on which I shall make some reflections.
I was spurred to raise the subject by yesterday's exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time. My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister:
Does he agree with his Chancellor's recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain joins a single currency during the next Parliament?
The Prime Minister replied:
We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear.
So my right hon. Friend continued:
Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament—yes or no?


The Prime Minister replied:
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here".—[Official Report, 23 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 142.]
That exchange was extremely significant. The Prime Minister's response was astonishingly evasive, and one is bound to ask why. Why could not the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? If it were the case that in not even the most theoretical circumstances could the Prime Minister see a case for entering the single currency, he is surely deceiving our partners because, by remaining in discussions, he is implying that—if the circumstances were right, if the various convergence criteria were met, and if it were deemed to be in our national interests—he would be prepared to recommend to the House that we should join a single currency. However, he could not even say that he would do so in those theoretical circumstances. Why was that? He was in the awful position of having to look over his shoulder and say to left and right, "Have I done well? Have I answered correctly?" He was in the difficulty of not daring to identify his policy on that issue.
The Government's broad position is absolutely correct, however. The decision need not be taken for some years hence, when the circumstances may have changed and Britain can take a decision rationally on the basis of the configuration of countries and circumstances at the time. Why does not the Prime Minister at least say, "Yes. If the circumstances were correct, I would be prepared so to recommend"? The fact that he is not prepared to do so not only amounts to a deception of our partner countries, which let him and our Government into discussions on the basis that, if the circumstances were right, we would join, but is highly indicative of the state of the nation and of British politics.
The man in the street surely thinks of the Prime Minister as fundamentally decent. but with a wholly impossible balancing act to perform. He is seen as someone who is trying to hold together a party that is fundamentally divided. I have tried to find a character in Greek mythology who was in the same position. I recall one who was suspended between heaven and earth because neither would receive him. I thought of Sisyphus or some other character. I am sure that the Greeks would have conceived of some person on the rack or in circumstances alike to the Prime Minister's at the moment. He is certainly tortured as rivals position themselves for the post-election struggle for the leadership.
All serious commentators surely agree that this Parliament is already dead and that, effectively, we have already embarked on an election campaign. There will be some disagreement on when the Parliament died. Was it when Britain was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism, just after the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), so eloquently told us about its advantages? With a certain political amnesia, he is now bidding us to forget the eloquence of the speeches that he made shortly before the forced withdrawal. Certainly, for several months, the Government have been paralysed and Parliament has been dead. It cannot be right for the country that there is such politicking and paralysis in policy.
I travel fairly extensively and discuss matters with parliamentary colleagues on the continent. It is already clear that, in respect of the intergovernmental conference,

a number of our partner countries are seriously considering putting relations with the United Kingdom on hold so far as is possible because they perceive the Government as a lame duck. Our partners are looking forward to a time after the election, whatever the result may be, when they can deal with a Government who are prepared to govern. I know of that position from very highly placed sources. That is sad and cannot be good for this country.
On politicking, we know that we shall return after the spillover session to an abnormal Queen's Speech. It will effectively be the Government's manifesto. It will be a shop-window Queen's Speech because, realistically, the Government will not be in a position to put into effect many of its proposals. In November and December, we shall be dealing with some Second Readings and the Budget, and in January and February, the Government will find it very difficult to get many of the ideas through. The Queen's Speech will be a parading of theory and not really relevant to the country's problems. It will be more relevant to the Government's wishes to be re-elected and their desire to encourage the country to view the form of their policies.
As the election campaign becomes shriller and more intense over the recess, it cannot have the traditional themes that the Government prefer, such as law and order and the wicked Labour party that is in thrall to the trade unions. Given our policy, that can hardly be a credible position to put before the country. One fears, therefore, that the theme chosen will be the flag and the idea of wrapping oneself in it over foreign policy. One fears a rather nasty campaign against foreigners, especially our European partners, along the lines of those in the popular newspapers that follow the Government. At home, alas, the flag will relate to the devolution policies of the Labour party and all other parties, with a slogan about the break-up of the United Kingdom.
We are, of course, in a world of slogans. "New Labour, new danger" is parroted in Prime Minister's questions like a music hall act. That is not serious politics. Serious questions need to be addressed in relation, for example, to the future shape of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party, under Disraeli for example, stole the clothes of Mr. Gladstone when it saw the way in which the Liberal party was addressing issues surrounding the urban working classes. Disraeli said that we must educate our masters and sought to address real problems. This Government are paralysed; they will not debate or try to address issues such as the Scottish and Welsh questions, which concern identity. It should be recognised that there are already clusters of government in Edinburgh and Cardiff that are not accountable. There can be a serious debate on how to address that. One cannot simply run away, chant slogans and pretend that such problems will go away.
Alas, over the next nine months, this country is likely to be afflicted by the politics of Micawberism. The Government are hoping that something will turn up. There is a smell of decay and a feeling of the end of an empire. We have heard about the Premier club and Mr. Beckwith, a gentleman who is bidding for Ministry of Defence houses and, as we are now told, is interested in buying Benefits Agency buildings around the country. Mr. Beckwith and others with the right amount of money are gaining access to the Prime Minister's ear. This smell of decay, paralysis, Micawberism, drift, this lame-duck Government, are surely bad for Britain—alas, they are likely to last for another nine months.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) feels a lot better for getting that off his chest. It was a peroration reminiscent of John of Gaunt on his deathbed. I shall not attempt to follow him, but I wish him an extremely happy holiday.
I direct the House's attention to a matter that I consider to be of particular concern. I refer to a headline in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which said, "Backwoodsmen save asylum Bill".

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do you still read The Daily Telegraph?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course I do. I emulate the hon. Gentleman's wonderful example. However, I shall not allow him to distract me.
I refer to the headline because I think that it highlights a matter that ought to be of acute concern to all parliamentarians: the relationship between the two Houses, especially the future of the House of Lords. It is a great pity that we are adjourning for the summer recess and returning for a brief spillover session without provision for a debate on the constitution. The other week, the other place had a very fine two-day debate on the constitution, in which many admirable speeches were made—not on both sides of the argument but on every side of it, since it is a many-sided and multi-faceted argument.
We trifle with the delicate balance of our constitution at our peril. The Labour party's proposals are fraught with danger. However, my main reason for addressing the House is that I do not believe that one can defend the automatic right of every hereditary peer to sit, speak and vote in the House of Lords.
I speak as one who basically believes in the composition and powers of the House of Lords—the powers are about right. It is a revising Chamber, a Chamber with the power to delay and to tell us to think again. It has been an extremely good institution over the past 17 years. On a number of occasions, particularly in the days when we enjoyed a very large majority in this House, the House of Lords told us to think again. In doing so, it often exercised collective wisdom of a high degree of excellence.
I think in particular of the House of Lords' rejection of the War Crimes Bill. We were most unwise to override it on that occasion. Nevertheless, when we overrode their lordships, we were doing what was constitutionally proper. It was entirely legitimate for the Government of the day to override the Lords' decision on the basis that the will of the elected House should not be superseded. That is an admirable constitutional doctrine, to which I subscribe.
However, I do not subscribe—the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me say this as I have said it to him privately—to using so-called backwoodsmen to vote down what is manifestly the desire of a majority of the active, participating peers in the other place. I do not want to debate the merits of the Asylum and Immigration Bill this morning. Those who were present for the debate know that I am sympathetic to the three-day amendment that came from the House of Lords. Again, I do not question the constitutional propriety of the Government's

attempt to overturn that amendment. Had the Lords inserted another amendment on Monday of this week, and had we debated it today, it would also have been entirely legitimate for the Government to try to persuade their supporters here to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.
However, it is most unwise, although constitutionally perfectly proper, to bring into the Division Lobbies in the other place peers who rarely attend or take part in the deliberations there and who come up specifically to vote after a debate in which they have taken no part. Of course they have the right to vote, just as Her Majesty the Queen has the right to refuse the Royal Assent to any Act of Parliament that we pass. No monarch since Queen Anne has exercised that right, and it would provoke a constitutional crisis of the utmost magnitude if Her Majesty ever did so. I believe that a similar reticence ought to possess many of the hereditary peers.
I happen to believe also that the House of Lords as constituted now has a great deal to commend it. I should hate to see it become the creature of placemen and party. The Cross-Bench element contributes enormously to our constitution, consisting as it does of men and women of great eminence and distinction debating issues on their merits without feeling that they have to look over their shoulders to party bosses or constituents. That has a great deal to commend it, too.
The active, regularly attending hereditary element in the other place, who include some extremely able young men and women, make a real contribution as well. By way of reform, and following the precedent of the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, I should like the hereditary peers to be confined to a certain number, selected on a basis to be agreed—perhaps elected by themselves. They include, as I say, many who are diligent in their attendance, eloquent in their contributions and emphatic in the mark that they make.
I must tell the Leader of the House, at a time when the whole future balance of Parliament is at issue, that it is unwise in the extreme to call out these "backwoodsmen" for particular votes such as the recent one.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The same happened with nursery vouchers.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Quite so. Again, I do not intend to discuss the merits of that argument. Suffice it to say that, in respect of the asylum arrangements, I was on the side of the Lords; on nursery vouchers I suspect that I would not be. That is neither here nor there. Using constitutional mechanisms that are in place is one thing; bringing out the backwoodsmen is quite another. By dint of those two recent unwise actions the Government have inflicted a wound—I sincerely hope not a fatal one—on the House of Lords.
I want the hereditary element to remain—in a monarchy it is important that it should—but I do not want every hereditary peer automatically to have the right to vote and speak in the House of Lords. I certainly do not want those who rarely exercise that right to be called in to rescue the Government from time to time.
I have felt moved to raise this subject above all because I deplore the fact that we have not had an opportunity to debate the constitution and the roles and positions of the two Houses during this Session. I hope that, when we


come back in October, my right hon. Friend will be persuaded to postpone Prorogation for just one day so that we can debate these matters. Failing that, I hope that we shall have a debate at the beginning of the next Session.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who had the guts to put his vote where his mouth was, I thought the rejection by this House of the three-day Lords amendment was a disgrace to our country. Meanwhile, I should like to ask five succinct questions.
My first question relates to the United Nations resolution on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. As the Leader of the House will know, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am not a member, is being taken by its Chairman to Buenos Aires in the recess. I hope that there will be serious discussions with our colleagues on the matter of what they can say there about the question of sovereignty. There is a real opportunity to listen to what is being said in Argentina about this delicate subject. Judging by what we heard from Guido Di Telia, this morning on the radio and in person about two months ago, it appears that there is some kind of constructive solution to be had. So, before the whole thing goes sour, let the Government take action.
My second question relates to Iraq. Are the Government entirely happy with the seemingly unending mission led by Rolf Ekeus? In the Whitsun recess, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire led an all-party heritage delegation to Stockholm, where we naturally spent time talking to our Swedish colleagues. It emerged that people in the know in Stockholm—to put it at its very gentlest—entertain doubts about their colleague Ekeus and believe that the time is ripe for a change. It is certainly clear that his personal relations with the Iraqis, not just with the inner leadership, have become appalling. It is also beyond dispute that infant mortality in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys is so dreadful that it shames humanity. We are almost as far from the Gulf war now as we were from the second world war when we put Germany back on its feet. I therefore hope that the Government will take another look at that appalling human tragedy.
My third question concerns Cuba. It is perfectly clear to some of us that any pressure to stop trading with Cuba has nothing to do with the merits of the case and everything to do with internal American politics. I draw the attention of the House to Sunday's talk by Alistair Cooke. There is also a great deal of other evidence pointing to the idea that attitudes to Cuba reflect the internal situation in the United States. I do not see why British industry and trade should be disadvantaged.
The fourth issue concerns Libya, a subject on which I have had so many Adjournment debates. During the recess, can thought be given to a matter raised by President Mandela's delegation, which concerns the whole of Africa? Would not the situation be brought to a head by a trial in The Hague or, as has been offered, in South Africa itself? Otherwise, it will go on for a lifetime.
I am not in any way anti-American, but one does notice that Iraq and Libya were traditionally British markets, and that decision-makers in those countries were educated at British, not American, universities. However, it is British,

and not American, industry that is losing out in those Arab countries. I hope that the Government will no longer act on the instructions—I think that that is the right word—on Libya given by Washington. Otherwise, the present situation will continue. The sanctions will be maintained—sanctions which, incidentally, are totally ignored by the Germans, the Greeks, the Italians and the French, while Britain and British industry lose out.
Finally, I wish to raise the matter of airport and aircraft security. Throughout this Session, I have endlessly raised the subject of the Lockerbie disaster of 1988, which led to major reviews in aviation security by both the British and American Governments. Eight years on, experts and campaigners for improved safety agree that it is still possible for bombs to be smuggled on board aircraft.
Among the specific measures that feature in post-Lockerbie reports, and which will now be readdressed by the investigation into the TWA flight if a bomb was to blame, is baggage reconciliation, as recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in 1987. Its implementation is mandatory in the United Kingdom from this year, but is limited elsewhere. The rather grandiose term for the vital process of ensuring that every bag loaded on board is matched with a passenger is still a long way from being carried out around the world. Airlines are particularly vulnerable to baggage being transferred from connecting flights, and the bomb may make the whole journey while the passenger does not. Eight thousand bags a day are lost worldwide—yes, 8,000 a day. Is that not proof that reconciliation is just not working? How can people talk about baggage reconciliation and safety in those circumstances?
The second recommendation was made in the 1989 report "The Lessons of Lockerbie" by Paul Wilkinson, security expert from St. Andrews university. There is no worldwide watchdog organisation on air travel that has teeth. The UN's International Civil Aviation Organisation can make recommendations but has no power to enforce them. Wilkinson and his colleagues say that that does not have to be the case, and see the same organisation's International Atomic Energy Agency as a working model. Critics in the US highlight the fact that the body responsible for enforcing safety, the Federal Aviation Authority, also has the job of promoting air travel. It may be a little difficult to do both, and the Government should think about that.
The final recommendation—that better security equipment be provided—was made by Sheriff Principal John Mowat at the 1990 fatal accident inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. Its implementation has been limited. Systems similar to supermarket bar codes, which would aid baggage reconciliation, are being introduced only gradually. Mowat said that better X-ray machines might have detected the Lockerbie bomb and—although one must not jump to conclusions about the TWA disaster—might have detected bombs elsewhere. Many people are concerned about that matter. Standards have improved in some airports, but many others have done very little.
I ask that serious consideration be given this summer to the kind of international authority proposed by Paul Wilkinson.

Sir Peter Emery: I will be as brief as I can, and I am sorry that I have not given my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House notice of the point that I wish to


raise. Before I do raise the matter, I cannot let go the crass statements and nonsense from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the Prime Minister's statement on the single currency, and implications about the hon. Gentleman's Government. Those need to be answered and hit hard.
The Prime Minister has—not once, but many times—stated at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that until we know the terms of a single currency, the Government will not make a statement about what they feel about it. Any person who believes that he can make a proper statement without knowing the facts is dealing in Alice in Wonderland politics. If the Government decided that a single currency was in the nation's interests, there would be a referendum. That is clear, and needs no argument.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. He implied that the Government are on their last legs, but what is the alternative? He said that it is time for a change, but a change to what? Higher inflation? We have the lowest inflation in western Europe. Higher mortgage rates? We have low mortgage rates, and they are always higher under a Labour Government. Higher unemployment? Unemployment has been falling for four years, and it is always higher at the end of a Labour Government than it was at the beginning. We must know the alternative, and we must ensure that it is branded properly.
I wish to return to my main point, and again I apologise for not giving notice to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I much object to the interference by an Opposition Front Bencher in what is an entirely constituency matter in Woodbury Salterton. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave me no notice of his question on the Order Paper, and that is wrong. He may be the Opposition's agriculture spokesman, but he should have the good manners to let me know what he is taking an interest in. If the hon. Gentleman had come to me, I could have told him what he is seeking.
The position is that rendered carcases and meat from non-BSE cattle are being stored in Greendale Barton in Woodbury Salterton. Any cattle with the disease, or from an infected herd, must be incinerated. That is the law, but a Liberal councillor is trying to create fear by criticising the Government, claiming that they are not doing their job properly by allowing the placement of this rendered material in a large agricultural store, which has been in existence now for 15 years or so, before being taken for incineration or disposal. That disposal cannot be done immediately, and there is not enough capacity to deal with the problem at the moment. The material must be stored somewhere, and it is in a proper store that is licensed and inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to get a statement from MAFF to clarify what I am saying so that we can assure my constituents that they have nothing to fear from the storage of this rendered material in my constituency.
People should understand that the Government's policy must be to get on with the culling as fast as possible so that we can meet the requirements by October and get the

ban on the export of British beef lifted. That entails a certain amount of storage around the country, including in Woodbury Salterton, but it is a measure to assist farmers and the British people to get agriculture back on its feet. That is why I raise the point. It is worrying that an Opposition Member should try to highlight something in my constituency which he could have clarified easily without stirring up problems.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I wish to raise several points. I agree with many hon. Members that the House should not adjourn until the Minister of State for Defence Procurement takes a definite decision about procuring equipment that the forces will need shortly. I refer particularly to the Nimrod 2000 project. That has been held back by the Treasury, whose guesstimates have been wrong more than once. I sometimes wonder whether it has lost sight of the old adage, "Look after the pence and the pounds will look after themselves." It constantly watches the billions but fails to realise that money is lost at other levels. It has to foot the bills for other votes of supply because of unemployment. Firms have their patterns changed by the delays in deciding the contracts. I urge the Government to settle the issue quickly.
Secondly, I want to discuss intimidation. Some people in Northern Ireland claim that their community is being intimidated. In reality, far more people from the Protestant community have been put out of their homes in the past few weeks than have people from the Roman Catholic community. Tragically, our people do not claim compensation as they are not part of Sinn Fein-IRA's economic warfare against the House, the Government and our people in Northern Ireland.
It may surprise some hon. Members to learn that anyone who moves out of a Housing Executive home gets £175 for reallocation. A fair number of people who have claimed intimidation have been on waiting lists for some time and are seeking to jump the queue. They also blame the social services for not giving them the proper counselling needed for the pressure of economic warfare.
I wonder whether yesterday, when the Prime Minister met representatives of two smaller political parties in Northern Ireland, he got assurances from them that intimidation and extortion by loyalist paramilitaries will cease. I speak on behalf of constituents who in the past few weeks have been told that the ceasefire is over and that they must pay £100 a week. Some shopkeepers are asked to pay £20 weekly and larger firms pay £1,000 a year. The mythology of the ceasefire should not blind us to the reality that the forces of lawlessness have been dictating the terms in the Province.
I was interested to receive a letter from a lady in Preston who encourages us because we wish to remain in the United Kingdom. She said that she became interested in 1970 because she did not like to see small people pushed down. In that context, is there not some conflict between a Government policy that seeks to maintain the Union and discourages a form of devolution in Scotland, England and Wales but that has not only sought to restore a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland but gone further down that road and allowed a foreign Government to have an unhealthy influence in the affairs of United Kingdom in that area? That lies behind much of the trouble.
We must consider the provocation that our people endure. As they travel through Belfast, they see tricolours flaunted from high-rise buildings, one bearing the slogan, "Drumcree church will burn". Where is that being told to the British people by the British media?
My last point concerns the responsibility of the media, and especially of the BBC. Was it without significance that Kate Adie was in Northern Ireland even before the walk to Drumcree? We are constantly told about the Protestant terrorists and paramilitaries, but the religious connection of the IRA is never mentioned. We must strike a balance and have responsible broadcasting. I have twice had to have corrections in respect of references wrongly attributed to me.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a constituency case. I realise that it is difficult for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to reply to a constituency case.
A constituent had a judicial separation hearing at Altrincham county court in the summer of 1995. His wife was legally represented because she was entitled to legal aid. My constituent was not so entitled because he was working, and had to represent himself because he could not afford to pay a lawyer and a barrister. The hearing lasted four hours, and it was decided that the wife should be awarded the matrimonial home, which has been paid off entirely. The husband had to pay the court costs amounting to about £1,000 and agreed to pay £400 monthly in maintenance. He also agreed with the court that, when he retired, he would commute £60,000 from his pension provision and pay a quarter of that to his wife so that she would get £15,000.
My constituent agreed finally that a £3,500 endowment policy due to mature this November should be shared between him and his wife. He accepted all that and, a few days after the court appearance, received a letter that stated the terms of the court order, to which he agreed. He was therefore surprised, a few weeks later, to receive another letter which amended the original order without explanation. He was then told that the endowment policy would go entirely to his wife rather than being split between them. He was disturbed about that, went to the court and asked for an explanation. He was shown the judge's handwritten memo, which clearly stated that the endowment policy was to be shared. He was also shown correspondence from the wife's lawyers, who had written to the judge requesting that he review the order. He had done so, amended it and ordered the whole endowment to go to the wife.
My constituent was never asked for his views. He wrote to the court and asked the judge for an explanation. He was told that the amended order was correct and that that was the end of the story. My constituent is entitled to know why the court was not reconvened and why he was not consulted. The decision was taken behind his back by the judge and his wife's legal representatives. He senses injustice, which I fully understand. He came to my advice bureau because he had tried every other means to get his grievance rectified, but to no avail. Because, in my innocence, I believed that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was responsible for the judiciary, I wrote to

him about the case. I had a reply dated 6 March from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which stated:
As you are aware the Court Service became an Executive Agency on 3 April 1995. As your correspondence concerns matters relating to operational aspects of the Courts, the Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to pass it to the Chief Executive of the Court Service … to reply.
Meanwhile, my constituent had been trying desperately hard to obtain the necessary information—all he seeks is some redress. A letter dated 12 January from the office of the courts administrator in Manchester stated:
I accept that you should have been given an explanation of the circumstances leading to the 2nd amendment to the order and for this omission I sincerely apologise.
Turning to your points regarding correspondence being entered into between the other side, the Court and the Judge without consideration to yourself I note that you also wrote to the Court to request amendment to the original order, albeit minor alterations, and that the order was duly amended. The petitioner's solicitors suggested that the order be reviewed and this request was relayed
to the judge. The letter adds that the judge could have reconvened a hearing
but it would appear that he did not feel that that course of action was necessary. I am not able to comment on the decision of members of the Judiciary.
I eventually received a reply from the chief executive of the Court Service on 25 March, in which he stated that while he understood my constituent's feelings,
I regret there is little I can add to the replies he received from the Courts Administrator at Manchester and the Customer Service Unit here at Headquarters. I enclose copies for your information. You will appreciate that the judiciary are entirely independent of Government and therefore have complete freedom in the way they deal with the cases that come before them.
My constituent was of course not happy with that reply, so I pursued the matter with the Court Service, which replied on 18 April:
It may be helpful if I explain that if
my constituent
does not agree with a particular part of the amended order, it is open to him to apply to the court to have the order varied. I enclose an application form should he wish to do so. I should stress, however, that the decision whether to allow his application rests with the judge who hears the matter. I would also strongly advice your constituent to seek legal advice before making any application to the court.
My constituent senses injustice. Because he is not entitled to legal aid, he would have to represent himself yet again. He has been told to appeal, but cannot afford to take the risk. The amount at stake is £1,750–50 per cent. of the value of the endowment policy. If my constituent won an appeal, he would retain that sum. If he lost, he would receive nothing and be faced with a substantial legal bill.
The judge involved is apparently a member of the Solicitors Family Law Association. My constituent felt so strongly that he complained to the association's complaints bureau, but was told that his complaint could not be accepted and that he had no redress. This country's legal aid system should be carefully examined. If my constituent had been legally represented, it could have been a different story.
My constituent has signed over the matrimonial home, paid the court costs of the original hearing, and agreed to pay his wife £400 per month maintenance and 25 per
cent.


of his pension commutation on retirement. Why was the judge able to change his mind on the sharing of the endowment policy? Why did the judge listen only to the wife's legal representatives? Why did not the judge reconvene the hearing and give my constituent the chance to put his case? If British justice is the best in the world, it must not only be fair but be seen to be fair. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can undertake some investigation before the House rises for the summer recess and explain why my constituent has been given no proper explanation, why the judge is apparently not answerable to anyone and where my constituent should go for justice.

Mr. Tom Cox: I declare an interest as chairman of the Commonwealth parliamentary Cyprus group.
On Sunday 14 July, the annual Cyprus rally was held in Trafalgar square, when 5,000 people gathered to remember the events of July 1974, when Cyprus was invaded by the Turkish army. Twenty-two years later, Cyprus remains a divided country. The occupied northern area is still under the control of the Turkish army, using an estimated 30,000 troops and military equipment.
Many hon. Members, irrespective of party, work closely together for a united Cyprus and the rights and freedoms of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Britain is deeply involved in the Cyprus situation. It is one of the island's guarantor powers, and Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth. Discussions have been held over the years, but hopes of an honourable settlement have not been realised. Many distinguished individuals have studied the Cyprus tragedy and their views are clear They include the Secretary-General of United Nations. In reports, he and others have plainly put the blame for the lack of progress on Mr. Denktash, who leads the Turkish-Cypriot community.
None of the events that has occurred since 1974 has helped to resolve the Cyprus issue. Mr. Denktash made a unilateral declaration of independence to seek, he claimed, an independent Turkish republic in occupied northern Cyprus. That achieved nothing. Years after that declaration, only one country in the world recognises that so-called independent state—Turkey. Over the years, an estimated 80,000 people from mainland Turkey have been brought to occupied northern Cyprus. They are known to Turkish Cypriots as illegal settlers. Many true Turkish Cypriots have left their homeland because they are not prepared to live alongside the people whom Mr. Denktash has brought from the mainland.
Earlier this year, Mr. Denktash made a statement regarding the 1,600 Greek Cypriots who were declared missing after the 1974 invasion. He said nothing more than that those people were dead. He gave no explanation of how they were killed and he did not say where their remains were buried. I asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action the British Government, as one of the guarantor powers, would take to secure further details from Mr. Denktash. On 29 April, the Minister of State replied:
Mr. Denktash's remarks bring an opportunity for all concerned to renew their efforts towards resolving this tragic and long-standing issue.
I hope that the work of the UN committee on mercy and people can progress speedily, and that all parties will continue to give it their full support. Although I welcome

the Minister's sentiments, the British Government have made no commitment to seek a dialogue with Mr. Denktash to discover what happened to the 1,600 people Mr. Denktash says were killed—but whom Turkish Cypriots say were murdered.
At the time of the 1974 invasion, thousands of Greek Cypriots lived in the Karpass area of northern Cyprus. Today, only 500 people live there. Many people have visited the Karpass area, including Lord Finsberg, who went only this year. He has spoken to me about the deep concern that he saw and felt about the denial of human rights to those people. To his credit, he has tried to improve the conditions of the people who live there. I highlight that incident because, in March this year, Members of the European Parliament sought permission from Mr. Denktash to go and visit the area. He refused.
I tabled a question on 1 July to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs asking what discussions he was having with Mr. Denktash. The reply was:
The Turkish Cypriot leadership is well aware of our views on the need to revoke the remaining restrictions on the basic freedoms in the Karpass."—[Official Report, 1 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 278.]
That is yet another reason why many of us in the House who genuinely seek an honourable settlement in Cyprus are deeply concerned at the actions of Mr. Denktash.
We are not talking about some faraway country; we are talking about a country that is a member of the Commonwealth and for which this country is one of the guarantor powers. There are many other issues that one could raise. A year ago, I, along with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, initiated a debate on Famagusta—a city today regarded as a ghost town. No one lives there. It was once one of the most prosperous areas of Cyprus. We have had promise after promise over the years from Mr. Denktash that Famagusta will be returned to the Republic of Cyprus. Nothing whatever has happened.
Recently, the Government—I applaud them for this—appointed Sir David Hannay as their special Cyprus envoy. I have met Sir David and I warmly welcome his appointment, but I should like to find out exactly how the Government see Sir David's specific role and how they will respond to his reports and proposals. When I met Sir David some three weeks ago, he gave a clear indication that he intended to play a very active role in seeking an honourable settlement to this long-running tragedy.
I believe, as do many hon. Members, that there is at long last real hope for an honourable settlement in Cyprus. That hope is Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. The next two countries due for consideration are Cyprus and Malta. In the view of many of us, there is no doubt that, if Cyprus becomes a member of the European Union, benefits will go—as I want—to northern Cyprus. Report after report tells us that the economy in northern Cyprus is on its knees. It gives me no pleasure to say that or know it because, sadly, ordinary men and women suffer as a result of the enormous problems that the economy in northern Cyprus now faces.
I hope that the British Government will give us clear assurances that they will support the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union. What worries hon. Members on both sides of the House is that, more and more, we get what we term the hedge. The Government say, "Oh yes, we are considering it, but only


when there is a settlement." We all want a settlement, but I and many hon. Members believe that there should be no delay in consideration of Cyprus's application for membership. That consideration should be based on the fact that, even if by then there has not been a settlement, the application for EU membership will be determined on its merits. Many of us believe that that is the only criterion that should be followed in the application that Cyprus is making for membership.
As I have said several times in this short speech, Britain has clear responsibilities for Cyprus. We want a settlement for the benefit of the two communities of Cypriots. Whether they are Greek or Turkish, they are Cypriots. We want only one Cyprus, and that is the Republic of Cyprus.

Sir Michael Neubert: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this debate on the last day before the House rises for the summer recess. Under the old dispensation, we should argue that the House should not rise before urgent action is taken or pressing decisions are made. That is certainly the case with the matter that I wish to raise this morning, which is the return of the Stone of Scone to Scotland, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 July. On 16 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a consultation paper. The consultation is to be for one month only, until 16 August.
It is almost certain that the decision on this important matter will be taken before we reassemble in October and absolutely certain that the consultation will finish in a little more than three weeks. This is an example of a familiar phenomenon in public life—controversial proposals are put out for consultation in the holiday month of August. Everyone who has concerns about the matter on both sides of the border would need to be on the alert to make sure that their views were made known. I make known my views this morning in this last opportunity here in the House of Commons.
The return of the Stone of Scone has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who was quick off the mark with his Adjournment debate yesterday week. I congratulate him on it. There was undoubtedly an element of surprise in the announcement. When the notice, "Statement: Stone of Destiny" went up on the annunciator screens, like many another I wondered what it could be about. Had the stone been stolen again? There was scarcely eager expectation of the announcement. It was that rare thing in modern politics—a decision that was not the subject of a disreputable leak or flagrant breach of confidentiality. It is a matter for commendation that that was so. Certainly the 700th anniversary this year of the removal of the Stone of Scone gave point to the announcement, and a pretext for it.
I greet the decision with some scepticism. I speak, of course, as a Sassenach—with some temerity, surrounded this morning by Scots—from well south of the border. As a Londoner born and bred, and I cannot see how these matters look from Scotland, but I doubt whether it is possible to rearrange hundreds of years of history by such a gesture.
If I speak briefly of the history of the stone, I do so as a non-historian, drawing heavily on advice. The stone consists of sandstone of a type apparently found in the Scone area and other areas of the world. It is part of the early history that is myth, but it is recorded that in 1249 Alexander III was crowned on the stone. In the late summer of 1296—hence the 700th anniversary of its removal—the stone was removed from Scone. In June 1297, the stone was formally presented to St. Edward, with the other Scottish regalia—the crown and sceptre. A bronze chair to house the stone was ordered, but in 1300 an account was presented for making a wooden chair. There had obviously been some restraint on public expenditure, which has an echo to this day.
A chair was eventually made of wood to house the stone found at Scone on which the kings of Scotland used to be crowned. Every coronation except one since 1399, or possibly as far back as 1307, has taken place in the chair. The only monarch not to be crowned and anointed on the chair was Mary Tudor, who regarded it as tainted by her Protestant predecessor.
That was the stone's early history. Then, in 1328, came the treaty of Northampton, which has been cited as one good reason for returning the stone as an overdue obligation, finally to be fulfilled by our generation. I am told, however, that the treaty of Northampton, made at Edinburgh and later ratified at Northampton, makes no mention of returning the stone.
The English and Scottish copies of the text of the treaty were lost. The 18th century Scottish historian Lord Hailes, in his "Annals of Scotland", attempted to reconstruct the terms from chronicle accounts, but copies of the terms have subsequently been recovered, and Hailes has been shown to have been wrong in some details, including provision for the return of the stone.
It is therefore incorrect to state that the Government are belatedly honouring the terms of a treaty by returning the stone to Scotland. The writ that orders the abbot of Westminster to surrender the stone, which refers to an agreement made at Northampton, refers not to the treaty with the Scots, but to a decision of the English king's council. There were no Scots present at Northampton with whom an agreement could have been made.
I am indebted for that advice to Richard Mortimer, keeper of muniments at Westminster abbey. He says that one of the myths gathering round the stone is that it once bore the inscription:
Ni fallat fatum, Scoti, quocunque locatum Invenient lapidem, regnare tenentur ibidem".
Fortunately, it is translated as:
If the fates go right, where'er this stone is found The Scots shall monarchs of that realm be crowned.
That prophecy was held to be fulfilled when James VI was crowned James I of England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] James left the stone at Westminster abbey, which he also chose as the burial place of his mother, Mary Queen of Scots. The presence of the stone at Westminster is therefore symbolic of the Union of the Crown.
For 300 years or so after that, there was nothing of report except that, in 1653, the chair and stone were removed to Westminster Hall for the inauguration of Oliver Cromwell as the lord protector, and then replaced. During the second world war, the chair was removed to Gloucester cathedral and the stone buried in the abbey. In 1950, as we know, the stone was stolen. That is when it enters modern consciousness.
That is the history and the context. Obviously it would be wrong to seek to change a decision already announced by the Prime Minister and approved by Her Majesty the Queen—that is beyond my ambitions or intentions at this or any other time—so I wish to concentrate on the choice of the new location, which I regard as extremely important. One can understand the dismay of the dean and chapter of Westminster. I quote from their official statement on the day of the announcement:
as the successor of those abbots of Westminster and Deans and Chapters who have been guardians of the stone for so many centuries, we must continue to urge those who are advising the Queen in this matter to take full account of the symbolic and emotional significance of the stone, its integral connection with the Coronation Chair and its intimate association with the sacrament of Coronation.
My purpose is to emphasise the stone's religious associations—an aspect that received little attention at the time of the original announcement. It is appropriate and desirable for the stone to be found a new resting place on consecrated ground, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) in his question to the Prime Minister on 3 July. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside supported that principle in his bid to have the stone returned to Scone in his constituency.
I speak from the standpoint of my role as parliamentary warden of St. Margaret's and a member of the abbey family. Any decision as to the new location must reflect not only the constitutional importance of the stone to the United Kingdom, but the sacred mysteries of the coronation, to which our present monarch memorably and movingly pledged herself at the time of her coronation in 1953.
It is not easy from this distance to suggest where a suitable site might be found. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside suggested that there might be a site near the ruins of Scone abbey. St. Margaret's chapel in Edinburgh castle has been suggested as one option for the future by the Prime Minister. Another option would be St. Giles' cathedral, which I visited for a magnificent organ recital during the Edinburgh festival last August. It would seem most akin to the present position in Westminster abbey.
Inevitably, given its history, consideration of security for the stone will be an important factor, as will an appropriately dignified setting to match the sovereign symbolism of the stone for the Union. I make a plea that tourism be not paramount. It is true that, at Westminster abbey, it is now visited by 2.2 million people a year, a number exceeded only by that of visitors to the tower of London, but I ask that tourism not be the overriding consideration.
It would be nothing short of desecration if a stone that is already to be moved backward and forward between Scotland and England at the time of future coronation were to be lodged insensitively as part of a "Come to Scotland" campaign and not secured in the religious character that is its essence. The stone was, after all, the votive offering to Edward the Confessor of Edward I.
I look to the Government to respect those religious associations and to find a resting place for the stone that reconciles all those different interests and provides a fitting home for that all-important symbol of our historic Union.

Mr. David Rendel: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise an issue that has become public in recent days, which intimately concerns many of my constituents—the level of radiation around the old Greenham Common air base and in the rest of my constituency and adjoining constituencies. It is feared that there may now be, or have been in the past, some health risks associated with that radiation.
As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have tabled several questions for written answer to the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health, which I hope that they will answer. I shall refer to some of those questions today because, although I realise that the Leader of the House may be unable to answer some of them, I hope that he will ensure that the Secretaries of State concerned provide an appropriate answer, with all possible speed, given the profound worries of some of my constituents about those matters.
The issue arose from an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 14 July, when it reported on a leak that had been made to it, apparently by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of a report written in 1961 by two Aldermaston scientists, Mr. Cripps and Mr. Stimpson. They reported at that time that they had found an increased level of uranium and radiation coming from uranium in the area around the Greenham Common air base in a sort of hourglass shape. That suggested that the runway at the air base had been at some point contaminated with uranium, which had been taken up on the wheels or wings of aeroplanes leaving the air base, and thus had been spread in both directions from either end of the air base runway.
Mr. Cripps and Mr. Stimpson said that the contamination must have resulted from some form of nuclear accident on the air base, and the only one that they could highlight was an accident that was known to have taken place on 28 February 1958, when a B47 bomber had to drop two of its fuel tanks; one hit a hangar and the other hit another B47 on the ground. Mr. Cripps and Mr. Stimpson assumed that it must have caused some sort of radiation leak, probably from a nuclear bomb on the bomber. There is considerable evidence that that was not the case, but that information raised understandable worries among many of my constituents.
One of the important questions that needs to be answered is why the Cripps and Stimpson report produced in 1961 was kept secret until it was leaked to The Daily Telegraph. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask him to place a copy of the report in the Library, and I am happy to say that he promptly did so. In his letter to me confirming that he would do that, he wrote:
I can … confirm that the 1961 report has been reviewed during the course of the day"—
on 15 July this year—
and we have concluded that it can be downgraded and released to the Public Record Office.
It is now much more than 30 years since the report was produced in 1961, so why was it not released to the Public Record Office on 1 January 1992, in line with the normal 30-year rule? There must be some reason why the Government decided that it would not be released at that time. As it was so easily released once it had been leaked and, as those of us who have had a chance to see the


report know, as there seems to have been no good reason for keeping the report secret for so long, the Government must say why they kept it secret until last week.
Another report, which is believed to have been written by a man called W. M. Saxby in 1987, also refers to radiation around Newbury and the air base. It is rumoured that, as a result of that report, the Government changed their decision about the classification of the original 1961 report. Why has the Saxby report not been released? Can it now be released to reassure my constituents about its content?
Openness and honesty about both those reports are now required if my constituents' confidence is to be regained. Several questions remain to be answered. What happened during that accident? What was the result of it? Was any uranium involved in the 1958 accident? As there seems to be sound evidence that the bomber may not have had a bomb on board at the time, could a different source of uranium have led to the later contamination of the area, either on the bomber or in the hangar, which was also destroyed? What then happened to the debris from the accident? The hangar was virtually destroyed and had to be taken down and replaced with a new one, and the bomber was burnt out. But what happened to the debris, which may have contained some form of uranium? Was it buried somewhere and, if so, was it buried on the site or elsewhere? What monitoring has since been done to reassure local residents that the debris, wherever it might be, is not contaminated?
It is understood that up to eight reports have been written about the accident by both the British Government and the United States air force. Those should now be made known and copies placed in the Library so that everybody can see exactly what happened, what happened to the remains of the accident, and what further steps are being taken to ensure that they are kept safe.
A further question is: where might the raised levels of uranium and radiation have come from if they did not arise from that accident? The Cripps and Stimpson report found genuinely higher uranium levels than would normally have been expected in the surrounding area. If the Government are to continue with their line, which I have no reason to disbelieve, that the uranium cannot have come from the 1958 accident, which was originally blamed, the question arises as to where that excessive uranium came from. Was there another accident on the Greenham air base that may have caused it? What tests have been carried out since that date to discover whether those high radiation levels still exist and, if so, where they may have come from? Do the Government now propose to carry out further tests, given the increased concern that has now arisen?
My next two questions are about health and illustrate why further tests may now be necessary. A few years ago, there was a scare about a cluster of childhood cancers around Aldermaston and Burghfield, and various epidemiological surveys and tests were done to see how they could have arisen. Although no clear answers came out, the surveys and tests showed a significant increase in childhood cancers in that area. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment investigated the case, but it is not clear whether it knew about the Cripps and Stimpson report and was given the full details of the accident in 1958, which might have affected its decision on how those cancer clusters arose.
Most important in terms of the modern position is that, sadly, there is now a cluster of leukaemia cases in a small section of Newbury town. Three cases in one road alone have arisen within the past few years. Even to a layman, that is an unusually high incidence of leukaemia. Several related diseases seem also to be at comparatively high levels. Whatever happened in 1958 and whatever the Cripps and Stimpson report shows, we must find out whether the high number of leukaemia cases in a small area of Newbury town is significant statistically and, if so, how the cases may have arisen and whether they could be related to the radiation that was previously discovered. What epidemiological and other tests do the Government propose, to see what the causes of an excessive leukaemia rate could be? Naturally, my constituents are concerned that it could be connected to the high radiation levels in the area, so that must be investigated.
For far too long, there has been excessive secrecy over this matter. While that might have been necessary in the cold war days when the report was first produced in 1961, I cannot see why such secrecy should be necessary in the 1990s. Those days are surely gone and now secrecy can only increase my constituents' worry. My constituents now demand truth and honesty. The secrecy must end.

Sir David Madel: First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he has conducted the business this year and for the fact that he has been able to give us more notice of what we are to discuss.
I wish to raise three brief points, the first of which is on education. This year's settlement has done great good by getting more money into the classroom. The Government must go further and get even more money out of county halls and into the classroom, and, in what remains of this Parliament, I hope, they will be able to do that by means of the new Education Bill.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment all the best in the current discussions on state spending. She attained a good settlement for this year and we want an equally good settlement for next year. When the GCSE and A-level results come out next month, they will show a further improvement. Higher standards in the classroom are Government policy. The higher the standards, the more young people expect to go on to higher education.
I hope that the Dealing inquiry into the future of higher education will not cut across the expectations and hopes of young people and their parents as standards in the classroom rise. With the escalator taking young people into university going up, it would be extremely unfortunate if Sir Ron Dearing came out with a policy that somehow made the escalator go down and that made it more difficult for parents to help to get young people into university. That inquiry is a terrific challenge and it is vital that it recognises that standards in the classroom are going up, which inevitably means more demand for higher education.
Secondly, I raise the issue of the Child Support Agency, which is still not functioning properly. I do not blame Ministers for that but, to paraphrase the former leader of the Liberal party, the former right hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs, Ministers must not create a bomb shelter in which the Child Support Agency can shield


itself from the splinters of public criticism. I shall give the House two examples. The first concerns a constituent whose wife left him and went to Australia, leaving him with custody of the children. It has taken a long time and much effort to make the CSA understand that he is responsible for the children and that there can be no maintenance because his ex-wife is living in Australia and has nothing to do with them.
One would think that the CSA could simply check with Bedfordshire local education authority to satisfy itself that the children are registered in Bedfordshire schools and that their father is responsible for them. However, it has taken months to get the message across to the CSA. Last month, my constituent received three contradictory letters within a week from the agency.
My second example concerns a constituent whose daughter went to live with my constituent's ex-husband. He was in employment and not on income support, so that did not trigger the Child Support Agency, and the daughter, who is approaching the age of 18, has been working for 12 months. Therefore, why is the CSA pursuing the mother for maintenance? It will require the patience of the archangel Gabriel and the wisdom of Solomon to resolve that matter. It is just another example of the CSA failing to do its work properly.
As the amount of overtime increases in certain industries, the CSA must be extra careful about calculating the level of maintenance to be paid. I have often told the CSA that overtime is not automatic; it is like the Cheshire cat—now you see it and now you don't. The CSA must not automatically include overtime in the usual weekly wage or the monthly salary when making maintenance calculations. It must be fast-footed and flexible in its calculations.
I hope that the CSA will improve one day. However, after another parliamentary Session during which I have battled on behalf of my constituents, I think that it has a long way to go, first, to attain the standards of public service outlined in the citizens charter; and, secondly, to improve communication channels with the public about its actions in relation to demands for maintenance.
Thirdly, I refer briefly to the extremely difficult industrial disputes in the Post Office and on the tube. I think that we must increase the powers of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in order to resolve those matters. At present, ACAS can intervene only if both parties are willing—it has a semi-voluntary role. Once a case is before ACAS and the parties have agreed voluntarily to refer their dispute to it, two things should occur: industrial action should be suspended together with any management proposals that may have triggered the strike. Both sides of industry should make an equal effort while ACAS tries to resolve the dispute. If the industrial dispute is hopelessly deadlocked with no movement on either side, ACAS should have the power to intervene. If neither side will co-operate, the law should be changed to allow civil action to be taken in the courts and damages awarded.
I think that it will take most of August to resolve those extremely difficult disputes. Public opinion regarding industrial disputes moves slowly, but above all people want to see efforts being made to resolve them. The current disputes will not be resolved in front of the television cameras or on the "Today" programme: they will be resolved only under the umbrella of ACAS,

without publicity stunts. I propose a small change in the law that would give ACAS greater powers to intervene. It has been resolving industrial relations disputes for 21 years and I believe that it is time to give it greater powers.
In conclusion, during the remainder of this Parliament the Government must continue to pursue policies that give greater job security, as it is the feeling of job insecurity that is making life difficult for Conservative Members. Post-1949, the Christian Democrats in Germany won five elections in a row because their policies of low inflation and low unemployment proved successful. There is no reason why the Conservative party should not do the same. Our priority must be to ensure that our economic policies give greater job security to all workers. If that can be achieved, we shall wake up on a fine May morning next year and find that the United Kingdom has a fifth Conservative Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) referred to the industrial disputes involving the underground and the postal workers. He could refer them to ACAS until he is blue in the face, but there is one relatively simple solution: treat the workers like those in this place.
For instance, the postal workers are trying to get Saturdays off. At present they must work a six-day week: that is the core of the dispute. Members of Parliament come to this place for four days a week, and 10 Fridays in the year are constituency days—I will not call them days off. Hon. Members do not have to work a six-day week unless they choose to do so. Nobody drags Members of Parliament here, kicking and screaming that they do not want to do the job. Whenever there is a vacancy, there are plenty of people willing to fill it.
If the Government want to act decently, they should say to those involved in the postal dispute, "Why can't the workers have a five-day week like many other people?" It is not asking for the moon. What is more, the postal workers held a ballot and a massive majority voted for industrial action. The same is true of the underground. The main part of the workers' claim is to reduce their working week by one hour. Tories talk about breaking the back of the British economy, but those two disputes are about having Saturdays off and a one-hour reduction in the working week.
It is appalling that we must listen to attacks on the wealth creators in society—the workers—who are asking for relatively small concessions. I would go a lot further. With 4 million people out of work—that is the real figure—we must crack unemployment in Britain. We could do that by opting for a four-day week for everyone. What is the point of having technology coming out of our ears if we are calling upon people to work five and six days a week—as well as overtime—amounting to a 48-hour week or more? We should talk about harnessing that technology to enable everyone to work a four-day week.
Now that I have got that off my chest, I turn to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—who has now left the Chamber. He got on his high horse about an hon. Member tabling a question about his constituency. He said that that was terrible: his area was being invaded. I remember speaking not so long ago at Coalite in my constituency,


where two farmers had stopped their production because of high dioxin levels. Hey presto, shortly afterwards I looked at the Order Paper and found that there was a question from a Tory Member of Parliament—it was obviously planted—asking the relevant Minister to explain to the House what the dioxin at Coalite was all about. Coalite is in my constituency, but I did not whine or whinge; I know that that is how Parliament works. I have a vague idea—I do not wish to put words into anyone's mouth—that Ministers in the next Labour Government might ask me to table planted questions. I shall tell them to ask someone else, but I am sure that it will happen.
I come now to several issues of which the Leader of the House is aware. He served for some time as Secretary of State for Social Security and he is familiar with many areas that may appear complicated to some people. I refer to the chronic bronchitis and emphysema legislation. The Leader of the House knows that Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), who represents a Yorkshire mining constituency, eventually succeeded in getting that legislation on to the statute book. Everyone knows that it does not work exceptionally well. The success rate is only 11 per cent. which is not high by anyone's standards. Thousands of miners who are coughing their lungs up have put in a claim, and only 11 per cent. have been successful.
Loads of us knew immediately that we had to do something about that. Many hon. Members—most of them are in the Chamber now—made representations at different levels. As members of the miners parliamentary group, we met the Trades Union Congress and put forward an argument that we had cobbled together with our hon. Friends. The FEV1—forced expiratory volume—test was not working properly because it provided a better opportunity for someone with a bigger physique than for someone with a smaller physique. The deterioration in lung capacity should not be decided by how big people are, so we said that that should be altered.
We said that it was unfair that people had to work 20 years underground to qualify and that no one on the surface should qualify, because people take in a lot of dust on the surface. We also proposed getting rid of the X-ray, because most people concluded that it was superfluous to the whole exercise. We campaigned on those issues. We took up the matter with the TUC, which took up our demands. It went to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which the Leader of the House knows only too well. It is generally accepted that, when the council makes recommendations to the Government of the day, they accept them.
Those recommendations have been with the Government probably for the whole of this year, so it is high time that they told us what they are going to do. We believe that they should accept the recommendations. We have reason to believe that they have not accepted all our ideas—I wish they had. Notwithstanding that, we think that they should now be put before the failed recipients.
Yesterday, in Social Security questions, it was drawn to the attention of everyone who has studied the issue that the old-fashioned special hardship allowance, which became the reduced earnings allowance, is in a big administrative muddle. It is clear that a substantial number

of people were given the reduced earnings allowance, and they were told by the Government that they had it for life. Now there is a new Government proposal to reduce the amount from roughly £36 to about £9 and to have what is called a retirement allowance. The net result is that people have lost £27, or whatever, out of that £36.
That is a problem in itself. Literally thousands of people in every coalfield are affected, as are people in other industries of course, but we all appreciate that, because of the physical aspects of mining, a considerable number of those affected used to work in the coal mines. They have lost that money.
It is clear that the Government should resolve that problem. I have again a simple recommendation. The Leader of the House knows the facts well. The matter involves part of the Department that he used to run. He should say, "Look. There is only one way to clear this up. Never mind going backwards and forwards to commissioners, appeals and all the rest. The Government have made a mistake and should allow the reduced earnings allowance to continue." I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is listening, because she can make that proposal when the next Labour Government get into power, and tell the putative Chancellor of the Exchequer that we shall need the money.
Many things in social security need to be sorted out by the next Labour Government. I am not expecting them all to be sorted out in the first year. I will be moderate on that issue, but we have been hammered on the social security front. The welfare state has almost been torn apart by the Government. I say that en passant. We shall probably hear a lot more about it from Conservative Members after May, or whenever the general election is, when I shall be sitting in the seat of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
There have been strikes by firefighters in Derbyshire, as there were in Merseyside some time ago. As we all know, there is a problem with firefighting and with how much money can go into it. Local authorities have been deprived of money. There have been cuts in Derbyshire in the past six years. The net result is that there are problems in coming to some form of agreement.
I have made it clear that I am on the side of the Fire Brigades Union. That will not surprise many people, but it is a problem. People cannot afford to act the fool when they are talking about people who have to put out fires. Not so long ago, hon. Members talked in the House about the three firefighters who had been killed, all within the space of a few weeks. People were saying that it was terrible. Every time there is a disaster in Britain, people say that the firefighters are doing a wonderful job, that they were first on the scene and all the rest of it.
What I have asked for is simple. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I have asked to meet the Home Secretary to put the case and to try to get the cap lifted by the Secretary of State for the Environment, so that we can resolve the problem and take account of the transition to a new fire authority next year.
With local government changes, it will be a problem not for Derbyshire county council, but for Derby and Derbyshire. Therefore, it is imperative that the firefighters know that, when the new authority comes into being, the financial base will be better than at present.
I compliment the Leader of the House because, when I raised the matter last time, he said that he would consider it and produced a letter from the Home Secretary. I know that he is never out of court and that he is a busy man—he has to keep defending himself; he is a bit of a recidivist. Nevertheless, he sent a letter to me saying that he did not have time to meet me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire.
I thought that it was general practice in this place that, if Members of Parliament made representations to meet a Minister, somehow or other, we would be able to meet him or someone from his Department. We are finding it extremely difficult. We are not on some errand, but trying to resolve the problem. We are trying to put out fires—a different kind of fire—on behalf of the firefighters.
The Leader of the House has gone so far. He has stirred the loins of the Home Secretary. We want the firefighters and Derbyshire county council to have the opportunity to meet the Home Secretary so that they can put their case, with a view to ensuring that the matter is resolved and, when the transitional authority takes over next year, that the financial base can be secure, so that fires can be put out in Derbyshire and elsewhere.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is important that I declare an interest. My interest is in Gilbert and Sullivan. It is important that the House realises that what I am going to say is a direct result of an unashamed interest in preserving for all time the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, which have made an essential and unique contribution to our English national heritage.
Some months ago, the House became aware of the danger—I think it is a new danger—facing the much-loved D'Oyly Carte Gilbert and Sullivan light opera touring company. The problem, when the curtain fell at the end of May, was whether it would ever rise again. The difficulty has simply been how to find some 20 per cent. of the money needed annually to run the D'Oyly Carte. The other 80 per cent.—amounting to £2 million—is raised from box office receipts, from private subscriptions and from local authority support. Just the remaining 20 per cent.—the £500,000—is needed to keep going the D'Oyly Carte company, which has been running for over 100 years.
The problem is that the Arts Council is the proper vehicle for funding the arts—it does a very good job, but it seems to have some failings. It tends to like grand opera, so the Royal Opera House, wonderful work though it does, receives 80 per cent. of its income from the Arts Council and has to raise the remaining 20 per cent. from private sources. On the other hand, the D'Oyly Carte has to raise 80 per cent. privately and needs only 20 per cent. from public subscription. There is a similar story with other companies that favour grand opera. When the Welsh Opera performs Verdi, Puccini and the like, it is favoured rather than Gilbert and Sullivan. Such funding offers grand opera to the privileged and wealthy. I have nothing against that, but those companies are getting the strawberries and cream, by 80 per cent. of public funding for their enjoyment.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend should not place too much emphasis on the figure of 80 per cent. at the Royal Opera House. He might find, on research, that that figure is not precisely accurate.

Mr. Steen: Obviously, if a former Secretary of State for National Heritage tells me that the figure of 80 per cent. is too high, I bow to his knowledge. The figure may be 70 per cent. or 60 per cent., but it is certainly very high and, in cash terms, the figure received from the taxpayer is about £14 million, whereas the amount given to the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan has, at the highest, been only £30,000 a year and, at the lowest, £15,000.
If the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan are part of our national heritage, perhaps they should be treated a little more generously—perhaps more in line with the grand opera approach of the Arts Council. Tens of thousands of people want an evening's entertainment in a language that they understand. It is no good going to grand opera and listening to Italian, French and German—most of the tens of thousands of people in the provinces want to hear a light operetta in English. From Birmingham to Glasgow and from Coventry to Plymouth, people flood to theatres in their droves and leave feeling better and happier. Whenever I go to see a Gilbert and Sullivan production, I come out in a merry mood, whistling some of the infectious tunes.

Mr. Skinner: Go on—whistle them.

Mr. Steen: I will not whistle one now, although it is tempting.
Gilbert and Sullivan is as much part of the British culture as cream teas, cricket at Lord's or the unpredictability of the weather.
I shall explain what has happened, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to understand the facts. I am delighted that the former Secretary of State for National Heritage has not yet had to leave for his doctor's appointment as he can put the facts right if I should get anything wrong in the next few minutes.
The D'Oyly Carte operated without any grants from 1880 to about 1982–102 years. In 1987, the company was reformed, sponsored by private institutions, and given a home in Birmingham, thanks to the generosity of the city council, which has been funding it to the tune of about £250,000 a year, although that grant is decreasing. The Arts Council has argued over the years that it cannot make an award to Gilbert and Sullivan's D'Oyly Carte largely because the Government have reduced its Treasury grant. In effect, whatever it is funding at the moment has to stay, but nothing new can be taken on board. That means that the existing orchestras and other good work must receive preferential treatment, but nothing new can be considered.
I wonder whether that is a correct analysis. I wonder whether the Arts Council is taking the right approach. Whether it is or not, there is a solution to the problem: lottery funds. The Arts Council receives £325 million a year from the national lottery. Many of the people who buy lottery tickets enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan. Can we find £500,000 from that £325 million to keep the D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan going? The answer is uncertain—the bureaucracy, rules and regulations surrounding the giving of lottery money are so complex that it has been difficult to see how money can be given to the D'Oyly Carte to keep it going, or to anyone else.
One would be forgiven for thinking that it should be otherwise. One may wonder why 0.5 per cent. of the total of the Arts Council grant from the lottery cannot be given


to the D'Oyly Carte. I have been told the reason by the chairman of the Arts Council. Whereas the Arts Council's funds are governed by Treasury rules, lottery awards are covered by different rules that come under the lottery regulations. Rules and regulations seem to be the problem in this case. The plot, which is worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan—perhaps mixed with Whitehall farce—is steeped in bureaucracy. The dramatis personae, which in this case includes Lord Gowrie and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, is peppered with petty bureaucrats proffering little lists that contain certain items. If a company is involved with quartets, madrigals or grand opera, it is on the list, but if a company is involved with low-brow Gilbert and Sullivan, it does not appear on the list. The list excludes popular culture and touring operettas.
We must give encouragement to the Secretary of State for National Heritage and her officials to achieve a little less restrictive regime on lottery funds. To give the Secretary of State her due, she has encouraged the setting up of a stabilisation fund, established to help organisations pay off any outstanding debt and put themselves on to a sound financial footing—we are all for that. I think that it is a splendid initiative, but the trouble is that it is surrounded by more red tape, with more criteria and more rules and regulations. It may take so long before the stabilisation fund comes on tap that the D'Oyly Carte will not be around to benefit.
The officials are also trying to free the lottery money so that some funds can be given to on-going touring operations. At present, the lottery money is precluded from paying for touring operettas or touring companies. To give credit where credit is due, the Secretary of State is trying to release lottery money for things other than buildings. If the D'Oyly Carte had applied for a new theatre to be built, there would be no problem. The problem would involve finding the money to do anything in that theatre.
The Leader of the House should find a way of not allowing the House to adjourn today until we have saved one of the most peculiar and important of our British institutions: the D'Oyly Carte and its Gilbert and Sullivan repertoire.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred to the importance of Gilbert and Sullivan in this country's cultural heritage and I want to speak about something that is important to its natural heritage.
The House may be aware that I have long been interested in hedgerows, the landscape and British wildlife. Hedgerows are important, but unfortunately, over the past 30 or 40 years, we have seen the destruction of thousands of miles of hedgerow. In the 1970s and during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1981, I sought to gain protection for hedgerows, but the Government blocked the move. In 1982, with all-party support, I presented a Bill to protect the most important hedgerows in England, but the Government blocked it. Further attempts followed and in 1987, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, who was guest speaker at the centenary celebrations of the Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds, called for the protection of hedgerows. I was delighted with that call because, as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I was to present a Bill in the House that very afternoon to accomplish just that provision.
Unfortunately, on the following Friday, despite the fact that the Bill was supported by Conservative Members as well as by Opposition Members, the Government blocked it, on the instructions of the then Prime Minister, who had called for such protection only a few days before.
Early in 1982, I reawakened interest in the old enclosure hedgerows—or the parliamentary hedgerows, as they are called in some parts of the country—and told the House that such hedgerows seemed to be legally protected. The Minister told me, "Those old laws no longer apply; but they have never been repealed." I made representations to the Minister and inquired of him, "You do realise that you're paying out grants to people to grub hedgerows that may be protected in law?"
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food then moved with enormous speed, ending all grants for grubbing out hedgerows. Trying to put matters right, the Ministry then introduced grants to plant new hedgerows. I welcome that measure, but point out the fact that it may take those new hedgerows a couple of centuries to develop the ecological interest possessed by those that have been grubbed out.
The Government failed to act to protect hedgerows. Furthermore, unfortunately, conservation organisations did not pursue the test case that I had thought desirable. Subsequently, the Government continued to block initiatives by Back Benchers on both sides of the House to protect hedgerows.
In the Environment Act 1995, the Government gave themselves the power to take action to protect hedgerows. Although they have received credit for assuming that power, they have, so far, not earned it by doing anything to implement their power.
About an hour ago, I left the House to make a telephone call, in which I learned that we now have the beginnings of a test case and that we have received a judgment stating that individuals who are concerned about the destruction of hedgerows of parliamentary character—the old enclosure hedgerows—have locus standi. The case was initiated by Mr. Colin Seymour, who has a great deal of experience in this matter, and I have supported it, as has the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, of which I am patron. We have now flushed the matter out into the open.
A few months ago, the Government refused to make a declaratory statement on the matter to confirm the legal position, as they should have done. They will now have to do so, or face a flood of cases across the country.
The House should understand that no one involved in this issue is being Luddite about it. The common land of England was enclosed in the industrial revolution to enable the production of more food for an increasing population. However, when the common lands were enclosed in 4,000 parishes—with each enclosure before 1840 requiring a separate piece of legislation—the landowners who carved up the land between themselves were given not only ownership but an on-going legal responsibility to protect hedgerows for all time. That responsibility applied to them, their heirs and their assignees, and those laws have never been repealed.
The Government's actions have allowed the irresponsible to maintain ownership of that land, and to get rid of the responsibilities and obligations that the ownership entails. The Government cannot continue to ignore that fact.
I had hoped that this would be my last speech in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] NO; the Government should go, and they should go quickly. If there is an early election, this will be my last speech in the House. However, if we do not have an early election—in which case I shall have to make another speech—I hope not only that sensible hedgerow protection is introduced under the 1995 Act, but that the Government will start to act responsibly on the obligations and responsibilities placed on landowners by the 4,000 private Acts of enclosure passed by the House before 1840.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will be pleased to know that my wife and I have been busy planting hedges all round our land in Scotland, as some of us do care about hedges.
I believe that the House should consider the constitution of the United Kingdom. In particular, I believe that we should have a debate about the crazy, unworkable and dangerous proposals for devolving power to a Parliament in Scotland. The House should also consider viable and deliverable alternative proposals.
Hon. Members are aware of the Liberal Democrats' proposals for a federal structure, in which Scotland would have a Parliament in Edinburgh, the English regions would have regional Parliaments and Wales and Northern Ireland would have their Parliaments. That is theoretically possible, but, unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats and for others who support a federal structure, the 83 per cent. of the UK population who live in England have, thus far, shown no real interest in such proposals.
In a democracy, there is no viable way in which the minority of the population who live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can force the vast majority of the population, who live in England, to accept a federal structure against their wishes. Consequently, any proposals for constitutional change must seem viable and be acceptable to the majority of the UK population.
Labour's proposals—which have created great rifts within the party and opposition to the proposals from outside the party—are neither viable nor acceptable. That is why the House should debate the constitution, and, in particular, the relationship between Scotland and England.
I believe that Labour's proposals are dangerous and unworkable. They are also unsaleable in England, because the English voter's right to enjoy the same decision-making structure as Scotland has been ignored totally. Does anyone seriously believe that voters in England—who comprise 83 per cent. of the UK population—will accept Labour's devolution proposals?
In simple language: what devolution proposals does Labour expect 83 per cent. of the population to support at the next general election? It expects English voters to agree to a Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is a Scot, educated at a fee-paying Scottish selective school, and who is proposing

to lead a Government at Westminster. Most of the major portfolios in his Administration are likely to be filled by Scots from Scottish constituencies. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is expected to be Chancellor of the Exchequer; the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is expected to be Foreign Secretary; the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is expected to be Secretary of State for Scotland; the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is expected to be the Patronage Secretary and Chief Whip; and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) may turn out to be the Secretary of State for Transport. Furthermore, the Law Officers and many of the Ministers of State will be Scots from Scottish constituencies.
If that were to happen, English voters would say, with considerable justification, that the Labour Scots are expecting to run Westminster—which would be perfectly legitimate in a unitary Parliament. However, those same voters will find that proposal unfair and unacceptable if that proposed Scottish-run Government also ask them to support proposals for a Scottish Parliament to be run by Scots in Edinburgh.
What about Labour's proposals for a referendum? In my judgment, it is nonsense to pretend that there is any logic in having a referendum on constitutional change without spelling out exactly what the referendum will contain. The details of a referendum are not merely to deal with constitutional anomalies but will be critical in determining how people will vote. The only time to hold a referendum on constitutional change is after Parliament has fully debated the matter and voted a Bill through both Houses—only then will the details be known and only then should the question be put to the people. It is nonsense to pretend otherwise—just a fig leaf to cover Labour's embarrassment.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield knows that the package that Labour is proposing is unsustainable and that he understands that it is unsaleable in England. That is one of the reasons for the Opposition's U-turn. As I have outlined, Labour's latest proposal for a two-part referendum is also unsaleable.
English-based voters will not accept that only Scottish-based voters should be allowed to vote for proposals that would allow the Scots to run Westminster, with Scottish Members voting on English law and order, education, local government and other politically sensitive English matters, while English Members would have no say on such matters affecting Scotland. The West Lothian question cannot be ignored. It has to be answered, but there is no answer yet.
To add to the irritation, Labour expects to retain the Goschen/Barnett formula which takes into account sparsity and population numbers in Scotland so that anything up to £1.40 of UK taxpayers' funds can be spent per head of the population in Scotland for every £1 per head spent in England—and the Scots are going to be running Westminster.
Such a notion is unsaleable in England because any party with a majority of Scottish Members could, if it so wished, take all Scottish legislation, including controversial measures, through all its stages in the Scottish Grand Committee. That is the obvious, viable, deliverable and workable alternative. As has recently been shown, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee can sit anywhere in Scotland and, with minor changes to the rules, can have UK Ministers attending and participating in debates.
So why is there deemed to be a need to set up a Parliament at great cost—£47 million, I understand—in Edinburgh? That £47 million would be only the beginning and the continuing revenue costs of this unnecessary, constitutionally dangerous Parliament could run into many hundreds of millions of pounds. Why, then, is the Labour party proposing such a badly thought-out scheme and putting the UK constitution at risk? It is doing so for short-term political advantage at Westminster and in Scotland.
No attempt has been made to accommodate the need to reassess the number of Scottish Members of Parliament; nor has any attempt been made to consider the amount of taxpayers' money spent in Scotland. The only way to prevent a damaging and debilitating English backlash is to make all the electors throughout the UK aware of the real hazards of the scheme. The crazy and dangerous proposals should be scrapped. We need a full debate to expose the realities.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) here. I believe that the answer to the Northern Ireland situation, which is often brought up as the red herring, lies in giving people there the same structures as the United Kingdom—local government with all the powers and authority that it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, it could be in the form of a regional council. With a unitary Parliament, we cannot have one part of the United Kingdom enjoying benefits that other parts do not. That is neither viable nor deliverable.
The 83 per cent. of the UK population living in England must be made aware of the realities of Labour's crazy scheme. Were it ever implemented, not only would the Scots under Labour be seen to be having their cake and eating it, but the English voters would be expected to bake the cake, ice and deliver the cake and pay for it.
We should be aware of the hazards and recognise that there would be an English backlash. I am not suggesting that the backlash will come only from Conservative Members. The British people as a whole have a gut feeling about what is right and wrong—they would know that Labour's proposals are wrong and would not accept them.

Mr. William O'Brien: This has been an interesting debate. I should like to comment on many issues, but because time is limited, I shall concentrate on a constituency matter, namely a company called LORE, or Land Owners Rights to Enforcement which is involved in wheel clamping on private land.
Wheel clamping is a cause of great concern in my constituency and throughout the Wakefield area. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, people are being allowed to park their cars only to find that, as soon as they leave them, the cars are clamped. LORE is demanding £95, or £100 in one instance, to have the clamp removed. That is extortion and something will have to be done to control

such companies which are not registered and which recruit all kinds of people to carry out their work and extort money from unfortunate people.
I had hoped that the matter would be cleared up by the Home Secretary before the recess. I understand that he is aware of the situation and is on record as having promised to consider regularising the way in which wheel clampers operate.
In my constituency on Saturday—market day—three cars were clamped. The municipal car park borders on to the car park of a public house. One car owner had purchased a ticket from the municipal machine because he thought that he had parked in the area run by the local authority. The person involved—a Mr. Robinson—had his car clamped and received a demand for £95 to have it removed. A group of 50 people gathered round to support the claim that those whose cars had been clamped should have the clamps removed free of charge. The police were called because the situation could have become serious. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are aware of the problem which has affected your constituents.
In a further case, Mrs. Mountain who lives in my constituency went to buy a ticket only to find that her car had been clamped when she returned to it. The people who carry out such operations are often large and heavy and are frightening in themselves. Something needs to be done because the situation becomes serious when people say that they will not allow clampers to get away with it.
Indeed, a constituent of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, took the initiative only last week. Her car was clamped but instead of waiting for the clamping company to tow it away, she towed it away using her own tow vehicle, had the clamp removed and demanded £95 from the clamping company for the clamp's return. I regard that as true initiative but it is dangerous because the heavies—the people employed by LORE—demanded the lady's home address and telephone number, which she refused to give. She regarded that as intimidation.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about intimidation and extortion in Northern Ireland. It is being used by wheel clamping companies in our local communities. I hoped that we could have found a solution or at least asked the Home Secretary do something about this dirty business before the House goes into recess. Sadly, that will not happen, but hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that something must be done about companies that are not registered.
Wheel clamping companies should be registered with the local authority and there should be reasonable charges. I am not suggesting that there should be no charge, but £95 is totally unreasonable. If a car is towed away, a further charge of £25 per day is imposed. The House must address that issue and find a solution.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We have had a useful debate with a high level of interest on both sides of the House. Therefore, there has been a great demand on time and some hon. Members who are present have not been able to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) was particularly disappointed that he was unable to discuss the catastrophic £32.5 million deficit faced by his local health authority.

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that I am the only


hon. Member who speaks for an entire county and represents more than 100,000 constituents. It is also well known, as it has been in the media, that I represent the only seat in the House where there has been a serious call for devolution and independence from the United Kingdom constitution. It is a matter of the utmost regret that the House has not found time to allow me to debate that issue today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That may be so, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mrs. Taylor: Notwithstanding that, we have had a useful debate and many hon. Members have raised important issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) opened the debate and it was no surprise to the House that once again he raised his long-term concern with the difficulties facing disabled people. I hope that the House continues to focus on those issues when my right hon. Friend retires. He has served the House well by drawing those matters to our attention on numerous occasions.
Other hon. Members also mentioned long-term problems, including those in their constituencies. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) mentioned Bart's and the health service in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned hedgerows and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) mentioned the Child Support Agency, which is becoming a long-term problem. Despite all the assurances that matters are improving, most hon. Members know from their case work that many problems remain in respect of the CSA. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them today.
Other hon. Members have raised topical issues. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about wheel clamping. He gained the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House when he described the outrages that are well known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about issues that he has raised previously. I am thinking particularly about what he said about airport safety. As he said, had the lessons, of Lockerbie been learnt, perhaps the events of the past few weeks might have been different.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked the Leader of the House for a constitutional debate, if not during Prorogation, early next Session. He gave the Government an extremely mature warning about the misuse of backwoodsmen in another place. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Asylum and Immigration Bill. The vote in another place on the amendment that concerned him would have been very different had it been a vote of life peers and not hereditary peers. The same applies to the decision affecting Ministry of Defence housing. He was right to caution the Government against playing into the hands of those who want to reform the House of Lords. Every time the Government get their way by dragging in every hereditary peer who is entitled to vote, the result is often different

from the will of the life peers and that does not serve the Government well. I commend him for making that warning.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I referred not just to life peers, but to hereditary peers who regularly attend the House of Lords.

Mrs. Taylor: On both occasions, the attendance was much greater than usual.
Perhaps the most topical issue this morning was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who mentioned the Premier club and the role of Mr. John Beckwith. It is urgent and important that before the House rises there should be a statement on the role of Mr. Beckwith in the sale of Ministry of Defence housing and the possible sale of social security property—an initiative that seems to have come from Mr. Beckwith himself. The value of the properties is reported to be £2.5 billion. Therefore, there are massive implications for the taxpayer and for the reputation of politicians.
We know from the Sunday newspapers that Mr. Beckwith is also chairman of the Premier club, which solicits donations to Tory party funds of up to £100,000 from very rich business men in return for contact with Ministers up to and including the Prime Minister—hence the title Premier club. At the same time, Mr. Beckwith is having discussions with management advisers to the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Secretary of State for Defence and urging the sale of all that property to consortia which he leads. That puts Ministers in an intolerable position as there is a conflict of interests. It also raises some important issues that should be addressed before the House adjourns for the summer recess. It demonstrates how much wiser it would have been to refer the issue of party political funding to the Nolan committee as soon as possible rather than delaying until after the next election.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised another topical issue that concerns both sides of the House. He was concerned about defence procurement. There is real concern that has been mentioned almost on a daily basis over the past two weeks that the Government have not yet announced their decisions on three vital contracts—the hon. Gentleman mentioned one of them. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are in jeopardy and there is great uncertainty within the armed forces. Ministers previously gave the impression that announcements would be made before the summer recess, but it now appears that the Chancellor is blocking decisions or announcements on those contracts.
I raised the matter at business questions, as did Conservative Members, yet we have not had a decision. There is great concern that the decision will be made without hon. Members having the opportunity to question Ministers. It would be unfortunate were such a decision to be made immediately the House goes into recess. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House raised that important point. Indeed, Conservative Members, as much as Labour Members, have said in this debate that several decisions are imminent—whether they be on the funding of London hospitals, defence procurement, or the Stone of Scone, to which the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) referred. We have been told that decisions are imminent but that they will not be announced in the House. I do not think that that is satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East speculated on what it will be like when the House returns in October and said that we shall have a very sparse Queen's Speech that might be no more than an outline of the Conservative party's manifesto. I am not sure whether we shall return for more than a formal Prorogation in the autumn because I would not be surprised if, effectively, today were the last day of this Parliament before the election. I certainly hope that that is so. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would consider it beneficial to everyone if a phoney Session did not begin in October.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): It will not surprise the House to learn that I do not intend to be tempted too far by the remarks by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I assure her that the Queen's Speech will not be phoney. I have spent a great deal of time on it. It will be a good, solid Queen's Speech, containing measures that we intend to carry through for the benefit of the people of this country.
The remarks by the hon. Member for Dewsbury represent only one of the temptations with which I am faced at the end of this debate, which has been the most extensive of its kind that we have yet had. If I count the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) as something akin to a speech and include my speech, we will have reached an historic high of 20 hon. Members taking part in this debate. That leads me to the first of various temptations. I wonder—it is very dangerous to do so in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and certainly totally against my own interests—whether the opportunity provided by this debate would not be rather a good use of a number of Wednesday mornings. Although it is perhaps not appropriate to consider that now, it has been observable that we have had a very good debate and hon. Members have valued the opportunity to raise a variety of issues.
Were there not a risk of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) thinking that I might be flippant, which is the last thing that I would wish to be on the subject that he raised, I would be tempted to say that no stone has been left unturned in this debate. Certainly no hedgerow was left unexplored in what we all fervently hope will not be the last speech by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
I see that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is not present. I personally thought that his speech was rather outside the normal tone and terms of this debate. A large part of his speech rested on the proposition that this place was dead, yet it has seemed very much alive this morning, which, in a sense, disproves what he said at the outset. His pretty extraordinary speech, on which the hon. Member for Dewsbury sought to build and which was effectively demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, was apparently based on attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for taking a position with which the hon. Gentleman declared that he agreed. I do not understand quite what he thought that he was at. He also succeeded, as did one or two

others, in referring to devolution in the presence of the author of the West Lothian question without seeking to address it in any way, shape or form.
Leaving aside such points, I am faced this morning with an even more impossible task than usual because I have been invited to range across the entire future of the British constitution by my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for North Tayside (Mr. Walker). When I put together the remarks by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and one or two others, I realise that I have also been invited to range virtually across the entire British foreign policy—all in less than 10 minutes.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows very well that the Government have very strong objections to the United States' extra-territorial legislation, which is one of the things to which he referred. I assure him that, although we share the United States' desire to promote political and economic reform in Cuba, we differ fundamentally on the means by which to achieve it. I cannot comment on all the points that he made, but I shall of course ensure that his particular point on airport security is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
The hon. Member for Tooting is an indefatigable contributor to our debates because of his experience in many parts of the world. I cannot range over the whole situation in Cyprus, but I am grateful to him for recognising that Sir David Hannay's appointment as our special representative is a sign of our determination to help reinvigorate the settlement process.
I briefly touched on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, but I should also say that he knows that consultation is going on about the future location of the stone. I am quite sure that his remarks will be taken carefully into account in the course of that consultation.
Since the issues that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised have by and large been the subject of extensive discussion and correspondence in various ways, he will not be surprised to learn that I am not in a position to add to what has been said on earlier occasions about the Bill to which he referred or, the unhappy—indeed, tragic—problem of haemophiliacs.
On the legal case concerning Gloucestershire county council, the Government are considering the judgment and its implications. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords has been granted and the Department of Health will consider whether to revise any of its guidance—which was of course the right hon. Gentleman's request—in the light of the House of Lords judgment. In any case, we shall shortly be discussing the details of the case with the local authority associations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) asked a specific question. I have an answer in front of me and I shall simply read it. Whether he regards it as an answer is a matter for him to judge, but we can no doubt return to it if he does not. It says that, in line with the investment appraisal process used throughout all NHS trusts, the final costs of the project to which he referred will not be known until the full business case has been produced. That will take into account the details of bids received from potential private sector partners in September and continuing discussions with the purchasing authority.
However, the trust is confident that the costs will be in line with those in the outline business case. That is certainly a relevant comment that my right hon. Friend will want to consider very carefully.
A number of references have been made to defence procurement. Although I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when questioned about the matter yesterday, I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in particular that I will ensure that the concerns and interest that he expressed on that front, together with the comments that he made on others, are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends as appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised a constituency case, and I well understand that. He had kindly given me notice of it. I must repeat that, as all hon. Members know, it is not possible for Ministers to intervene in judges' decisions. In view of what he said, however, I shall specifically ask for his speech to be drawn to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
I shall ensure that the remarks by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) are carefully studied. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has asked the National Radiological Protection Board to undertake an independent inquiry into the contamination levels in the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It might also be possible for the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which has a wide-ranging brief, to take account of any new information that arises concerning the position in his constituency.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) recognises that it is no more possible for me to range across the entire education policy than it is for me to do so on foreign policy and the

constitution. I have, however, noted with care his remarks, which I thought were interesting on that front as well as on industrial relations.
I thought that the usual knockabout by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was quite good this morning. As ever when he gets to constituency matters, he made some important points, but I am not in a position to comment on them in detail. I am sorry that my success in getting him a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not satisfied his appetite. His appetite for a meeting remains and I shall ensure that the matter is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
As for the IIAC recommendations, with which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am familiar, he slightly exaggerated the amount of time the Government have had to consider the proposals. As I understand it, the report was given to Ministers in March and published in May. These are complicated matters; a response will be made once all the issues raised have been given full and careful examination.
Lastly—I am doing rather well having referred already to hedgerows—I note the strong support for the D'Oyly Carte expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I know that the company is in the middle of complex commercial negotiations on its future, and I do not intend to comment further.
As for hedgerows, section 97 of the Environment Act 1995 requires that regulations be subject to consultation and approval by both Houses before they can come into effect. We expect to publish draft regulations for consultation later this summer, with the aim of laying the regulations before Parliament by the end of the year.
Apart from wheelclamping, which I shall bring to the attention of the Home Secretary as he is familiar with the problem, I believe that I have now touched on every subject raised this morning.

Social Policy (Europe)

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to the Front Bench today. This is the first time he will have had the pleasure of engaging in debate with me, so my welcome for him is even greater than it might have been for any other Minister who might have attempted to yawn his way through the debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not do that.
I make no apology for raising this subject again, the fifth time I have done so in the House since 1992. I promise my right hon. Friend that, if he accepts all my recommendations, I will never speak on this subject again. I suspect that that is a promise neither of us will be able to keep.
Our greatest problem in relation to European social policy has been our failure fully to understand how the treaty of Rome and its amendments work and have worked, and how the institutions of Europe have implemented the treaties. I refer to the Commission, the court and the Council of Ministers.
We have endlessly been told not to worry too much about the wording of the treaties; that they are vague, that they can be interpreted as we like, and that, after all, it is the nation states that will drive forward implementation of the treaties, so all will be well. In short, we are told that the vagueness of the wording will constitute our defence. I, on the other hand, have endlessly repeated that the language of the treaties, beginning with the preambles—even though they are officially ultra vires—is very important, because it allows the court to understand the precise direction in which the treaties lead.
Comments made by Advocates General and justices of the European Court have shown time and again how they see the vague treaty obligations being implemented. The problem of the 48-hour working week is a clear practical example of what I mean.
I should like to start by reading out some of these preambles. In wonderfully general language, one of them states:
'The Community shall have as its task… a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.
Article 3 further states that
a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund
shall be pursued, and that
the strengthening of economic and social cohesion
shall be the guiding principle.
It is important to understand that the justices believe that such language gives them a sense of Europe's direction, which is eventually to act as one on such matters.
Too often, I believe, my right hon. and hon. Friends fail to understand the language in which these documents are couched. Articles 117 to 122 all concern social policy and are written in wonderfully general language. For instance, article 117 says:
Such a development will ensue not only from the functioning of the common market, which will favour the harmonisation of social systems, but also from the procedures provided for in this Treaty and from the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action".

Article 118 states:
the Commission shall have the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to: employment; labour law and working conditions; basic and advanced vocational training; social security; prevention of occupational accidents and diseases; occupational hygiene; the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers".
Article 118a, which comes under qualified majority voting, is relevant, because, in the titanium dioxide case, the court has decided that such matters will be decided not by unanimity among the member states but by QMV. That is of course relevant to the 48-hour working week. It reads:
Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objective the harmonisation of conditions in this area".
I do not intend to read out all the articles, but I do suggest that my hon. Friends read, re-read and re-re-read them.
Especially I would ask my hon. Friends to read article 5, which stipulates that member states
shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty.
That is critical, because our social chapter opt-out is in Europe's sights.
The Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), assured me at the time of Maastricht that the court would not be a problem: that it was in the business of decentralising, and would rule in favour of nation states. Since then, there have been judgments against us on the transfer of undertakings and on fishing. Most recently, the Advocate General made his remarks about the 48-hour working week.
I was told after a previous speech that I was attacking the court. That is not my intention. It is only carrying out what it has always done—it sees itself as the architect of political union, just as it always has since 1954. Indeed, Judge David Edward told a Committee of the House exactly that. It is therefore quite wrong to think that I am attacking the court. What I am attacking is our failure to understand what we have signed up to. While we are contemplating the implementation of the social policy opt-out, Europe is already planning how the social chapter will work.
Back in 1960, Advocate General Roemer said:
The European treaties are nothing but a partial implementation of a grand general programme, dominated by the idea of a complete integration of the European States".
Lasok and Bridge, authors of one of the premier reference works on the subject, have this to say:
references to the spirit or the aims of the Treaties enable the Court to fill in the gaps in the system and so to 'update' the text. In doing so the Court has consciously acted not only as the Constitutional Court of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".

Mr. Anthony Steen: Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] None of them is here, and nor are the Liberals. Still, both parties make great play of the fact that, if they ever came to government, jointly or on their own, they would increase expenditure on a new range of social benefits. As I understand my hon. Friend's argument, however, what they say does not matter at all. This whole policy area has


been taken over by Europe, which will decide how much we spend on it. So what the Labour and Liberal parties think is wholly irrelevant.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am told that, if Labour gains power—God help us if it does—it will think the unthinkable, but I urge him not to think the unthinkable—that Labour will get into power. The resistance that the Government have put up has slowed the process, although it will not stop it. Labour will simply help to accelerate the process by acquiescing to everything laid down by Europe.
The latest and most important example of the process in action is the working time directive, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister will be only too well aware. Although limitations were set in the Council on the way the directive works, it will cost in practice up to £2 billion to implement, with a further £1 billion needed in the following two years.
The costs to industry will be severe and will be borne across the economy in lost employment, as the flexibility to employ under the previous conditions changes. The directive also breaks the historical way in which successive British Governments—ironically, even socialist Governments—have accepted the more laissez-faire and relaxed view on the way in which employers and employees negotiate contracts in this country.

Mr. John Sykes: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate? If I may say so, he is an entirely worthy successor to his honourable predecessor, the noble Lord Tebbit. I wish to give an example of the effect that the social chapter and the 48-hour week will have in my constituency.
Cleveland Potash—based near Whitby in the northern end of my constituency—is by far the biggest employer in the area. I was told last week that, if the 48-hour week is imposed, the company will have to lay men off. It is the only potash mine in this country, and competes, with mines in South America. The fact is that one works when the work is there, not when the Commission says so.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who has practical experience in these matters—something that too few hon. Members have. He has run a business, employed people, and, no doubt, laid people off at times.
If the working time directive is so successful, Spain—which has implemented all the measures—should be rocketing away in trade, and should have no unemployment. Everything in Spain should work according to what Labour believes and the proposal allows. Instead, Spain has more than 23 per cent. unemployment, more than 30 per cent. youth unemployment and a stagnating economy.
The idea that this country would put up with those problems and not have constant turmoil on the streets is unbelievable. This country, which has implemented none of the measures, has the lowest, and still declining, level of unemployment in Europe, and an enterprise economy on which we pride ourselves.

Mr. Steen: The interesting thing about Spain is that it gets £8 million a day from the EU, but, in spite of all that public subsidy, it does not succeed.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes yet another powerful point. The same applies to Germany, which has rising unemployment, and France. Having taken hard decisions—from changing the nature of pension rights to deregulating and making the work force more flexible—the Government are seeing those successes bear fruit. It would be a tragedy if we allowed that to change by implementing the directive.
Although there are practical reasons why implementation would be a disaster, there is also a principle involved. If we allow this matter to go through, and if we do not make it clear to the Commission and to our colleagues in Europe that we will not accept it and that we are prepared to do almost anything to stop it, a flood of further regulation will follow the directive. That regulation would restrict the flexibility of the British work force, and would bring it into line with the sclerotic and declining state of employment in Europe. That is why, for once, the principle is critical. Even though it is said that the situation is not as bad as some make out, the principle makes it devastating.
My right hon. Friend the Minister must demonstrate that he will resist implementation at all costs, because behind it lie increased holiday rights for fathers, increased regulations on employers on sex discrimination, more stifling controls on part-time workers, workers' privacy regulations, and restrictions on an employer's ability to dismiss employees. It goes on—the catalogue is endless.
Another matter of social policy which may even affect the would-be move to a single currency is the issue of pensions. We have made our pensions provision flexible by putting it out into the private sector. Funds have been provided, and people now have security for the future in a way that they never did before. In Europe, none of that is happening. I understand that an estimated £10 trillion-worth of liability exists across Europe, and that would be imported to this country were we to go down the road of a single currency. The process of social policy is about moving us to the lowest common denominator that exists across Europe.
We must make it clear that there is no point in putting a line in the sand and having an opt-out, if we accept that that opt-out can be bypassed by treaty obligations. We must make it clear that we will not only resist implementation but will absolutely refuse to allow it to happen. We must also seek a different relationship with Europe.
It is inconceivable that a Conservative Government could allow social provisions as contained in the articles of the treaty to dictate to us on the flexibility of our work force, which has better employment provisions than elsewhere. Now is the time for us to debate a different relationship, which would allow Britain to be the enterprise centre of Europe and the flexible trading partner with the rest of the world that we have always prided ourselves on being.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I shall be extremely brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on securing


the debate. Some of us have been accused over the years of heinous and dastardly crimes against our country, our Government and our party, but he is saying in substance nothing new—we expressed these opinions in this place during the debates on the Maastricht treaty.
My hon. Friend will recall that we assembled some comments taken from debates on the treaty in a pamphlet that we called "Game, Set and Match?" In a debate on 20 January 1993, he said:
Therefore, the route that I have demonstrated leaves the door open for substantial Community interference in social policy, effectively undermining our exclusion from the social chapter.
In the same debate, I said:
Even though we may wish to opt out of the 48-hour working week directive … it is impossible to imagine a situation in which, 11 member states having voted for a particular directive, the court will not rule against us if we continue to defy that directive."—[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 413–22.]
It is clear that we are not saying anything new, and what we said was not startling then—everyone else in Europe was saying pretty much the same thing.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on a tiny ray of hope in "A Partnership of Nations", the Government's White Paper on European policy, in which paragraph 20 states:
The Government is considering ideas for limiting the scope of Community action".
That may not have been enough for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—who made it clear that he did not believe that our European policy is working—but that is what we must pin our hopes upon if we are to stop European social policy wrecking our economy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am honoured to be replying to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has had the good fortune to secure. I am grateful for his welcome.
The Government's position on European social policy is already well known to the House. Since the Maastricht negotiations in 1991, the UK has been in a unique position in Europe. We and our European partners have taken separate paths as far as increasing the burden on businesses of social legislation is concerned. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford will agree that the path taken by the UK is the better one.
I need only cite as evidence the decisions by LG and Siemens to locate major new manufacturing facilities in the UK to demonstrate that our policy is working. We are by far the most attractive destination for overseas investment in Europe. A significant factor in those investment decisions is our social opt-out. Though we participate to the full in the single market, we have chosen not to be bound by commitments taken on by our partners under the agreement of the Fourteen on social policy.
There is some confusion about what our opt-out means. It is not correct that we are not bound by any elements of European social policy. The European Union treaty has always contained several provisions relating to social policy, such as health and safety and equal treatment: we

are bound by them, and we honour them in full. In fact, the UK has a much better record than most member states on that.
However, we are not bound by any agreements concluded by the Fourteen under the Maastricht social agreement, such as the European works councils directives. Some sections of the press have trumpeted the fact that, in spite of that, some British multinational companies have decided to adopt works councils. The crucial point is that those companies had the freedom to choose, and made their decisions voluntarily. It is vital for businesses that they, not Government, make such decisions.
Another example is the directive on parental leave, to which my hon. Friend referred, which was also recently agreed by the Fourteen. British companies are, of course, free to provide generous benefits for employees after the birth of their children, but we will not force them to incur high costs, regardless of their ability to meet them, by relinquishing our social opt-out. The most likely result would be not higher social standards but higher unemployment.
The UK's flexible and deregulated labour market encourages employment and growth. We want it to continue to do so. Had the UK signed up to the social chapter, legislation on working conditions could have been imposed on us by qualified majority, whatever the views of the British Government, employers and workers. That is why the Government will not sign up to the terms of the Maastricht social chapter. We certainly could not sign up to the social chapter and then control it.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: rose—

Mr. Hanley: I am sorry, but I do not have long. If I have time, I will come back to my hon. Friend.
We could not pick and choose the bits of the social chapter that suit us. The moment we signed up, the scale of legislation would undoubtedly increase, and Britain would be overruled on many matters vital to our economy.
What do we believe to be the European Community's legitimate role in social policy? It is certainly not the case that we see no role for the European Community at all in employment or social matters. There is vital work that the Community can do, but its social policy and employment agenda must be founded on three important principles.
The first is competitiveness. Significant and sustainable growth is impossible in an uncompetitive economy. If Community businesses are not able to maintain and improve their competitiveness, jobs will not be created in the Community but be increasingly located outside it. Europe will not be able to compete in the global marketplace. Many provisions of the agreement of the Fourteen on social policy will lead directly to a loss of competitiveness. Many British and foreign businesses also believe that.
Secondly, we insist on diversity. That is, or should be, one of the Community's greatest strengths. The diversity of our institutions, traditions and legislation is as great in employment and the labour market as in almost any other sphere, and it must be respected. No one can believe that the measures necessary to combat unemployment in Greece or Spain are the same as those required in Britain. Are the problems of regulating working practices the


same in Sweden as they are in Portugal? I think not. Unnecessary harmonisation risks raising costs and damaging competitiveness.
The third essential is subsidiarity. European social policy must respect the division of legal competence between the Community and member states that is laid down in the treaties, and the principle of subsidiarity that is now enshrined in them. Much of the action required to combat unemployment must be, and often can only be, undertaken by member states themselves. The Community's role is to support and complement action by them, not to try to supplant that action altogether or to tell them what action they must take.
When the treaty on European Union was concluded, the UK succeeded in including the principle of subsidiarity in its text. In the current intergovernmental conference to consider treaty changes, the UK will make proposals to entrench subsidiarity still further.
We are also committed to doing everything in our power to convince our European partners of the dangers of creating a two-tier labour market: one tier of people with permanent jobs, well paid and with all the benefits of pension rights, holiday pay, and employment protection legislation; and a second tier either with no job, or forced into temporary contracts—or even the black economy—because employers are deterred by excessive regulation from offering permanent jobs. We are bound by a simple moral principle: it is wrong to favour those in jobs at the expense of those without them, or to concentrate on protecting the employment of the first tier while failing to increase the employability of the second.
It is clear that adding yet more employment law or social legislation will do nothing to help the people of Britain, or those of the rest of Europe.

Mr. Sweeney: Conservative Members fully endorse all that my right hon. Friend has said, but what will the Government do to renegotiate our obligations under the various treaties, and limit the powers of the European Court of Justice to bring in by the back door the very things to which he is rightly opposed?

Mr. Hanley: If I have time, I shall come to that.
We are not going to add more employment law or social legislation, because that will not help the people of Britain or of Europe. Europe's employers are well aware of that. A large-scale survey carried out by UNICE, the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe, last year found that employment law was the second highest cause of concern for business men. A survey last summer by the European Enterprise Centre found that two thirds of Europe's smaller companies were worried that higher social costs resulting from the Maastricht social chapter would make them less competitive.
Some member states are seeking to extend Community competence over employment at the intergovernmental conference. The UK will strongly oppose this, just as we

shall oppose any suggestion that our social opt-out should be abolished. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that very clear.
The need to create more jobs and to tackle unemployment is one of the highest priorities in Europe, but it is businesses and employers who create jobs and the Governments of individual member states who create the right conditions for employment. Jobs cannot be brought into being simply by legislating for them in the treaty. The way to create new employment in Europe is to improve competitiveness and productivity.
I must mention an issue that has been the subject of much lively debate inside and outside the House. The Government are awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the UK's challenge to the working time directive. The UK believes that the directive is a piece of social legislation that has been foisted on us in the guise of a health and safety measure.
We hope that the court will confirm our interpretation of the health and safety article 118a, which would exclude its use for such measures. If the court does not endorse our view, we will ensure at the intergovernmental conference that our concerns about possible erosion of our social opt-out, and about that directive in particular, are addressed. The Government's IGC White Paper "A Partnership of Nations" expressed our determination to ensure that the health and safety article of the treaty should not be used for social policy by the back door.
Now that some Labour Members are present, I can refer to their leader. He has tried to calm the fears of British business on several occasions, because the Labour party remains committed to signing the job-destroying social chapter. In that, it is playing true to form—more regulation and higher costs for employers, which will lead inevitably to firms going bust and to higher unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to maintain that the Labour party would sign up to proposals for social regulation only if they did not inflict economic or competitive damage on British business. That claim is disingenuous, to say the least. The right hon. Gentleman constantly refuses to accept that, if Britain gives up its social opt-out, it will sign up to a future of European labour law, with unquantifiable consequences. The social agreement between the other EU nations contains substantial sections governed by qualified majority voting, and with QMV one cannot pick and choose those bits one likes and those one does not. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is pure doublespeak.
One reason why more social policies have not been put through the social chapter is that Britain has an opt-out, and other countries do not want to give British business a competitive advantage. Our opt-out is protecting businesses across the whole of Europe from giving away competitive advantage to the rest of the world. Labour would give all that away. Adair Turner, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, has said that the way to pick and choose is not to sign up to the social chapter at all.

Kashmir

1 pm

Mr. Max Madden: I am pleased to introduce this short debate on the future of Kashmir. I have notified the Minister that the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) hope to contribute briefly. I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) are in their places, together with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—all of whom have taken a considerable interest in the Kashmir dispute over many years.
Since 1990, there has been a popular insurrection by the people of Kashmir in support of the right of self-determination, for which they have struggled in the face of a determined effort to eradicate their state. We have seen the displacement of 2 million Kashmiris over a long period, the killing of 40,000 Kashmiris, the murder of an entire generation of young Kashmiris, and the transfer of large numbers of non-Kashmiris to Kashmir, with the clear objective of diluting the indigenous population and facilitating a more favourable electorate.
We have seen the occupation of Kashmir by 700,000 members of the Indian forces—one member of the Indian security forces for every 10 Kashmiris. We have seen the systematic destruction of the local economy, grievous pollution of the Kashmiri environment, gross human rights violations, systematic curfews, house searches, rape, torture, detention without trial and disappearances.
We have seen an orchestrated bid to remove political and other leaders of the Kashmiri people by assassination and disappearance, and sustained efforts to erode the Kashmiri language and culture. All that has occurred over many long years.
The recent elections in Kashmir were widely condemned by the international media, who reported widespread intimidation and coercion of Kashmiri people by Indian military forces. Before the elections, there was one member of the Indian military forces for every four Kashmiris.
The British Government have equivocated in the face of challenges to the free and fair nature of those elections. It was absurd of the Government to refuse to publish a report by a British high commission official from Delhi who observed the Kashmir elections, on the ground that it was a confidential internal document. That absurdity caused widespread concern in the House and outside, and I hope that the Minister will say today that the report will be published, so that we may all know the views of the British official who was asked to observe the elections.
The current view of the Indian Government is that state elections will take place in September. It is important that candidates should not be required to sign a declaration of support for the Indian constitution, and essential that a large number of international observers are present in Kashmir to monitor the elections.
The new Indian Government have received an overwhelming welcome. We all wish Prime Minister Gowda well in overcoming the awesome problems facing his country. Senior members of his Cabinet are known for their sympathetic understanding of the Kashmir dispute, which they have demonstrated in courageous ways in the past. I think particularly of Foreign Minister Gujral, Home Minster Gupta, and Defence Minister Yadav of the United Front Government of India.
A recently published document, "The United Front: A Common Approach to Major Policy Matters and a Minimum Programme" concludes:
India today is in the midst of a major transition in its economic, social and political life. This is a transition period which will be guided by the need to strengthen the principles of democracy, secularism, federalism and social justice. The ethos of our humanist tradition and the aspirations of the Independence struggle inspire the United Front Government to carry out the above programme. In the building of this new India of equality, justice and fraternity, we seek the fullest participation of all citizens. The hallmark of the United Front Government's approach will be the greater and greater involvement of our people in all its endeavours.
The section on Jammu and Kashmir states:
the problems of Jammu and Kashmir will be resolved through giving the people of that State the maximum degree of autonomy.
That important statement comes from a new Government who have clearly broken the mould of Indian politics, which will never be the same again now that the Gandhi dynasty has been broken. In the climate of enormous opportunities and challenges that that presents, the British Government should say what they propose to do. This country has a shared history with the Indian subcontinent. The core reasons for the Kashmir conflict go back to before independence in 1947. We carry an enormous responsibility for the present situation. The situation in Kashmir today is unacceptable to the international community and to the vast majority of the British public, including the Kashmiri community in this country.
Do the Government have the will and political determination to encourage talks between the Governments of India and Pakistan—if necessary, talks about talks? The UK convened several conferences to resolve the Bosnian conflict. Why not a conference in London to find a way out of the Kashmir conflict? We have appointed a special envoy to try to resolve the Cyprus dispute. Why not a special envoy to do the same in respect of Kashmir? There are close parallels.
Will the British Government press the Indian Government to allow access to Kashmir by UN rapporteurs—particularly those responsible for investigating torture and executions? It is intolerable that successive Indian Governments have isolated the people, problems and conflicts of Kashmir from world and international opinion. They have consistently refused Amnesty International and other human rights groups access to Kashmir and the right to move freely around the country.
Will our Government now press the new Government of India to allow human rights groups access to Kashmir? Will they press the new Government of India to grant visas to Lord Avebury and an international mission which applied for visas weeks ago, which wishes to mediate on the hostages taken more than a year ago in Kashmir? We shall all appreciate it if the Minister gives us the latest reports on the hostages.
We should remember that the people of Kashmir have demonstrated against and condemned the taking of hostages and condemned those who were responsible for taking the hostages, who were kidnapped more than a year ago. Several leading Kashmiri politicians have sought to mediate and ensure that those hostages are released immediately alive and well. So Kashmiri politicians and the Kashmiri people do not condone hostage-taking. Indeed, their struggle is for the right to self-determination and it is clearly based on democratic means.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 1947, there have been elections in Kashmir, and democratic Governments have been established who have not at any stage demanded independent status for the people of Kashmir? Does he accept that there is outside interference, and that the terrorists who are killing ordinary people are being armed from outside? Those who have taken up arms are not even citizens of Pakistan, but citizens of other countries.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has a perfect right to express his views. I do not agree entirely with all that he says. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is clear that a popular insurrection is under way in Kashmir, which is based on the determined struggle for the right to self-determination. The outcome of self-determination is for the people of Kashmir. We are concerned that the people of Kashmir should be given an early opportunity to decide the destiny of their country.
Will the British Government press the Government of India to allow journalists from around the world freely to report what is happening in Kashmir, and to allow Members of this House and the other place easy access to visas to enable them to visit Kashmir and talk to the people of Kashmir?
Kashmir represents today the most serious threat to regional peace. Both India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir. Both now have nuclear capability. Both countries are using enormous amounts of scarce resources to purchase military hardware and pursue a military solution in Kashmir. That is unavailable; there is no military solution to the Kashmiri conflict. There can be only a political solution. We need to encourage India and Pakistan to declare war on poverty and use their scarce resources to relieve the awesome poverty that both countries confront, and not to pursue military means of resolving the Kashmiri conflict.
Her Majesty's Government have a key role to play. They have a responsibility to find a lasting, peaceful, political settlement. I hope today that we may hear from the Minister some change of thinking and, more particularly, some indication of what action Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take. A more proactive, robust role would be widely welcomed, and might bring a resolution to the conflict earlier rather than later.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for the opportunity to participate in this most valuable debate. One of the encouraging aspects of the long dispute in Kashmir is that, for many years, there has been a bipartisan or tripartisan approach to the issue among Back-Bench Members.
The long conflict over Kashmir can be regarded only as a terrible tragedy, not only for the people of Kashmir but for all the people of the subcontinent. Kashmir's status is essentially the nub of the serious tension which exists between the two great powers of India and Pakistan. It is difficult to imagine the enormous cost to both countries of maintaining such substantial defence forces, which are largely devoted to this single conflict in a small part of south Asia. As the hon. Member for Bradford, West said, the cost greatly outweighs the resources devoted to education, health and social services in the subcontinent.
Britain and other aid-giving countries cannot be indifferent to the disparities in Kashmir. Therefore, although the conflict cannot ultimately be resolved without the commitment of both India and Pakistan, we have a duty to express our concern, and exert some pressure on the parties to negotiate seriously about the future of the territory.
As the hon. Member said, the irregularities and abuses in the most recent elections were well documented in the world's media. New elections for an assembly are now planned by India, and it is most important that international observers should be allowed to be present. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will put some pressure on India to allow that to take place.
The nature of the powers in south Asia in the world today make the dispute in Kashmir one of the most intransigent and dangerous. I hope that, in the 50th year since independence and partition, if we cannot look forward to an imminent resolution, at least some significant progress can be made towards that happy outcome.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for allowing me a little time to intervene in this debate. It is a shame that we have such a short debate. I should like us to have a long debate in the House in Government time about Kashmir.
We are all aware of the documented evidence of torture. We know that cases of rape occur daily. It is intolerable for the people of Indian-controlled Kashmir that the situation should continue. I hope that the Government will use their good offices with the new Indian Government—there is hope now because there is a new Indian Government—to persuade them to come to the negotiating table along with Pakistan to find a just solution and to consult the people of Kashmir. The people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination and to discuss and decide their own future. We cannot continue in this way.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance today that he and his Government are prepared to put pressure on India to make sure that the human rights abuses stop and that India comes to the negotiating table.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for requesting this debate. I know that the Kashmiri situation continues to be a matter of great concern to him and his constituents and to many others on both sides of the House, as the debate demonstrates. It is also a matter of serious concern to the Government, as I am sure everyone is aware. Therefore, I am pleased to have an opportunity to explain the Government's thinking on this difficult issue.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As from the end of this debate, he will have direct responsibility for south Asia, in which I wish him well. He is assiduous in his research.
I can assure the hon. Member for Bradford, West that we pay close attention to developments in Kashmir. That has always been the case, and it is even more so now. Indeed, for more than a year we have had a permanent presence in Srinagar as part of our continuing efforts to secure the release of two British citizens, Paul Wells and Keith Mangan, who were kidnapped by militants last summer. They were taken, together with an American, a German and a Norwegian, in early July 1995. Very sadly, the Norwegian was killed in August 1995, and we have not had proof of life for the others since 28 August 1995.
We should not debate the subject of Kashmir without remembering the suffering that all the hostages' families have been through, and continue to endure. Members of the Foreign Office's consular division are in contact with them daily. Our thoughts are always with them and their loved ones as efforts continue in Delhi, Islamabad, Srinagar and capitals throughout the world to find out what has happened to them. These four are caught in an issue that is not of their making, and we owe them all our efforts.
Hostage taking is counter-productive. The kidnapping of Paul, Keith and the others has done nothing but harm to the Kashmir cause. Political leaders in the valley know that. We are grateful to those who have demanded the release of our citizens. We ask those political leaders, and others, to redouble their efforts to help us to establish what has happened to the four of them.
Kashmir has been a theatre of conflict for far too long. The Kashmiri people deserve better than to live their lives in an atmosphere of violence and intimidation. It is 10 years since I was last there, but I remember the beauty of the landscape and the friendliness of the people. Kashmir's reputation has led many thousands of tourists to the edge of Lake Srinagar, to trek into the hills or to buy the excellent carpetware for which the region is rightly famed. Kashmir had a successful tourist industry, but it is no more—the insurgency has ended that. It has brought danger to the region. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office now advises British visitors not to go. We do not want more kidnaps.
Kashmir has been a theatre of conflict for too long. It continues to bedevil relations between two great countries, India and Pakistan, two great friends of the United Kingdom. We regret that.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with our policy on Kashmir. We believe that the way forward must involve simultaneous progress on three fronts. The first is bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan. Self-evidently, both India and Pakistan are crucial to a settlement, but it is not easy, because they are two neighbours who do not talk. We would like them to, not only on Kashmir but on the full range of bilateral issues, and we have told them so and written to tell them so.
The atmosphere now is encouraging—better than it has been for some time, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West rightly deduced. Since the election of a United Front Government in Delhi, both sides have expressed a willingness to resume talks. We warmly welcomed that. This might initially be at senior official level, continuing talks last held in January 1994. There is no agreement to

do so yet, but quiet diplomacy is continuing behind the scenes. We take this opportunity to urge both sides again to agree to hold talks.
Now is surely the right time. It is 25 years since India and Pakistan last went to war. Twenty-five years after the second world war, victors and vanquished had formed new alliances. They had recognised that it made more sense to work together for common prosperity, as equal partners, than to turn their backs on one another. The same could be true in south Asia.
If India and Pakistan do resume talks, I hope that they will agree to open a new chapter in their relationship, to try to establish greater trust between the two Governments and the two peoples. We are keen for greater links to be developed between the two—more trade, more tourism, more exchanges. The hostility that has existed between these two great countries, both Commonwealth nations, with so much in common, has spawned, fanned and sustained the violence in Kashmir.
But what about the Kashmiris? Should they not have a say in the future of their home? Yes, of course they should. An improvement in the relationship between India and Pakistan is a sine qua non for any lasting settlement to the Kashmir problem; but equally important is the development of a genuine political process in which the aspirations of the population can be accommodated. We have not spelt out what that process should be, because it is not for us to do so, but we have said that elections can be part of the process.
There has been much interest in the House in the parliamentary elections held recently in Kashmir. Members on both sides of the House have criticised them, noting specifically the allegations of coercion that were reported in the Indian and international press. We saw those reports of pressure being exerted on people to vote, reports which we are not in a position to dismiss. The elections were not perfect—the statements of the Indian election commissioners implicitly recognise that—but the issue is peace and how to get there.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in the House on 10 July, free and fair elections can play a part in leading the way from violence towards dialogue and a political settlement of these difficult problems. The voting in the parliamentary elections showed that elections there can take place, and that many of the population want to vote. They are fed up with violence; they want peace. We can all sympathise with that, because terrorism does not offer a way forward. Democracy does.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West mentioned the publication of the high commission's report on the elections. The report was written by one member of our high commission who visited Kashmir during the elections. It is not possible to publish a copy of the report, and it is therefore not possible to place it in the Library of the House, because it is a confidential internal document. I believe that it contains critical information, which we should absorb. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the internal report very seriously.
It is important that we try to encourage elections, and that they be free and fair.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that time is short.
I too very much welcome the opportunity for the Kashmiri people to express their opinions, but does the Minister accept that it is crucial to a democratic process that people be allowed the right to say what they want and to express their opinions on the whole political position? Is it not the case that the elections that the Indians are talking about would take place on the basis that, unless candidates subscribed to the Indian constitution, they would be committing acts of treason, were they to advocate, for example, that Kashmir should not be part of India? That surely cannot be a true democratic process.

Mr. Hanky: The House should be aware that the Indian authorities want to hold state elections in Kashmir in the autumn; these will be the first state elections since 1987, and will bring an end to President's rule from Delhi. It is only right that the people in Jammu and Kashmir should have the right to elect local representatives and be governed by them, and we hope that, if elections are held, militants and political leaders in the valley will allow those who wish to participate to do so, and that the wishes of those who prefer not to vote will be respected.
If the Indian Government decided to invite international observers to monitor the elections, we would definitely welcome that, and it would enable the elections—

Mr. Toby Jessel: Would my right hon. Friend briefly give way?

Mr. Hartley: As long as it is very brief.

Mr. Jessel: I said "briefly". In welcoming these provincial elections, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it would be quite wrong if anyone was scared off voting by militant terrorists?

Mr. Hartley: Absolutely; indeed, I have just said that. I agree with my hon. Friend.
If the Indian Government decided to invite observers, we would welcome it; it would allow the elections to take place in an atmosphere of greater trust—that is something that has been lacking in previous elections. Furthenmore, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on 10 July, it would make an important and significant contribution to the credibility of any electoral process in such a sensitive area.
Elections must be part of the process, but there must be a dialogue between the Indian Government in Delhi and the political leaders in Kashmir if peace is to return, and the development of a genuine political process is important. So too is the improvement of human rights there. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) spoke graphically on that subject.
The situation continues to cause us grave concern. Members of the security forces continue to be implicated in allegations of human rights abuses. Recently, there have been some improvements in the position, but we should like to see more.
The greatest threat to human rights in the region is the cycle of violence that the local population has had to suffer since the insurgency began. We have long called for an end to external support for this violence, but, sadly, it continues. Indeed, it seems likely that many of those responsible for the kidnapping of Paul Wells and Keith Mangan were not Kashmiris.
I recognise that terrorist violence makes life difficult for the security forces in Kashmir, and that they are there in large numbers. As hon. Members know only too well, terrorism must not be allowed to triumph, and tough action is necessary. But the fight against terrorism must not compromise respect for human rights. We know that from Northern Ireland, where our forces are conscious of the need to respect human rights in maintaining law and order.
I am grateful that the Indian Government are showing a willingness to give access to outside observers and international humanitarian organisations. A key development was their agreement in the past year to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Kashmir.
So what can the UK do? First, it is not right for us to seek to impose a solution. It is for those directly involved to discuss the way forward. I am often asked by those who fail to understand the complexity of the situation why the UK could not mediate. Mediation would work only if the fundamental conditions were right, and both India and Pakistan wanted it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The next debate is on the defence industry in the north-west. I call Mr. Nigel Evans.

Defence Industry (North-west)

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this vital issue concerning the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west and I am delighted to have the support of so many of my colleagues from both within and outside the north-west. Those include, from outside the north-west, my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and, from within the north-west, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) will be interested in some of what I shall say and would wish to participate if he could, but I am extremely grateful to see him in his place.
I am also pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Southport (Mr. Banks), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans). Opposition Members from the north-west include the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) must also be interested in this debate.
Britain has a long and distinguished history in international affairs, which has bequeathed us a unique role on the world stage today, from the time when the sun never set on the British empire to present-day conflicts. We are the only country to be a member of NATO, the European Union, the Western European Union, the Commonwealth and the Group of Seven leading industrial countries, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
As President Chirac noted earlier this year, Britain has a long tradition of action abroad. That proud tradition has continued under this Government, with our troops, aircraft and Navy not only protecting our protectorates and assets abroad, such as the Falklands, but participating in grand coalitions of states enforcing the rule of law. That can be seen time and again—for example, in the Gulf, when our Tornado fighters, built in the north-west, were the first to brave enemy anti-aircraft fire and bomb Baghdad, and, more recently, in Bosnia, with UNPROFOR enforcing the peace process.
We are still a nation with a global reach. Even if it is not all that it once was, we can still hold up our heads with pride. For example, in one month in 1995, British forces were deployed or carrying out exercises in more than 30 different parts of the world. We are proud to continue that tradition, but we must ensure that our troops continue to be the best armed in the world.
Defence procurement now goes some way to achieving that goal. It accounts for 40 per cent. of our defence budget. It is important to maintain technical superiority, the like of which we have in the north-west. The importance of defence procurement to the economy as a whole and in the north-west in particular is beyond question. Some 38 per cent. of net manufacturing output in the north-west is directly related to aerospace products, which are affiliated to the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace. Its 127 member companies range from British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and GEC to smaller companies, some with only five or six employees.
The number of jobs involved is staggering. Up to 40,000 people are employed in the industry. At least two other jobs depend on every aerospace job. We can see the

devastating effect that the cancellation or refusal of an order can have on the area from the loss of a 10-year lead in electronics and thousands of jobs when the TSR2 was cancelled by the then Labour Government in 1965 because it allegedly cost too much.
That was especially important to British Aerospace in Preston, where thousands of jobs were lost. The effect on the local economy was so severe that people still discuss the loss of that order today. We must not allow such catastrophes to happen again, as they would if Labour ever had a chance to put into operation its plan to slash defence by £4.5 billion. New Labour would certainly mean new danger to jobs in the north-west.
Today, the British armed forces are better armed and equipped than they have ever been, not only in high-tech weaponry but in boots and clothing, and I congratulate the Government on that considerable achievement. To continue it, we must guarantee the success of the British defence industry, especially the expertise and skills for which the north-west has become famous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and I have visited British Aerospace, Samlesbury, in my constituency several times and marvelled at the skills there. Many people from all our constituencies work in the factories there, and at Warton just outside my constituency. Their projects include the Eurofighter, which is set to be a major success, despite the fact that, only a few months ago, there was a major dispute between the four partner nations—Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy—over who should get how many finished aircraft, and over the flight control system.
The Eurofighter is a magnificent aircraft, which I saw in flight at Warton recently. It has advantages over all its competitors, particularly the American F22, which, although it allegedly has a better flight control system, could cost £20 million more per plane. The French Rafale, although roughly the same price, is easily out-performed by the Eurofighter, and the far cheaper Swedish Grippen is much inferior.
We must never forget the strategic importance of having a manufacturing base that is capable of producing aircraft such as the Eurofighter. It has an extremely good chance of being a commercial success, which can but benefit this country. An amazing number of jobs are tied into that project. Once British Aerospace has received the production investment go ahead, the number of people directly employed on the project will be 2,000. That does not include outside contractors or service industry providers, of which there are many.
According to an article in The Times earlier this week, if the aircraft is as big a success as early indications suggest, as it has advantages over all its main rivals, it will have a significant impact on dole queues in the Lancashire area. I urge the Government not to ignore that.
Defence is the life-blood of the north-west economy, and we have become world beaters in that area. It is essential, however, that the Government make the right choices in their procurement programme—unlike the Labour Government of the 1960s who, through their short-sighted penny pinching, consigned many skilled Lancashire workers to the scrap heap and lost us a massive lead in military technology, which filters through to civilian life and benefits us all.
Opposition Members call for diversification, but we must remember the importance of the defence manufacturing industry to the north-west, the fact that the skills base remains in the north-west, and that exports and research are important.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Evans: I was about to refer to the Nimrod upgrade.
As the prime contractor and design authority for Nimrod 2000, British Aerospace will take responsibility for many aspects of the plane, including the flight and test evaluation. All management and integration tasks will be carried out at Warton, thereby ensuring the retention and development of those key technologies for future airborne weapon system platforms.
But it is not only British Aerospace that will benefit directly from a contract of that size. Arrangements are in place for north-west industry to gain from contracts. Indeed, 68 companies already benefit from the £50 million-plus-worth of business that comes their way each year as subcontractors to British Aerospace Military Aircraft division alone. However, the Nimrod contract will be worth £212 million to the region as a whole.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Evans: Several hon. Members from the north-west contacted me earlier to ask whether I would give way to them during the debate. I said yes to all those hon. Members, none of whom included Opposition Members.
The Nimrod contract represents a total of 5,825 jobs in the north-west. Of those, 3,000 jobs will go, directly and indirectly, to British Aerospace, Warton. In addition, more than 1,500 jobs will go to subcontractors in the region, and a further 1,250 will go to other British Aerospace plants in the area.
As well as the immediate effects that a contract will bring, the export potential for the Nimrod 2000 has been examined by British Aerospace and the Department of Trade and Industry. They have estimated that the export market is worth more than £9 billion over the next 25 to 30 years, addressing both upgrades to existing fleets in the short term and the building of new aircraft after 2015 in the long term.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he would wish to associate his remarks with our hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in whose constituency Warton is located and who cannot be present for the debate due to ministerial commitments. Will my hon. Friend, the Minister and his scribe accept that it is not acceptable to delay the procurement projects that affect the north-west and other areas beyond the next few days? The decisions have been taken, and the agreements have almost been made. The Treasury must now give the go-ahead, and we expect that to occur very soon.

Mr. Evans: I am extremely concerned about the delay in giving the order for the replacement maritime aircraft. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has already made a decision. Many workers in the north-west and elsewhere expect that order to be given, and the delay is extremely worrying for them.

Sir John Cope: I apologise for intervening in a debate about the north-west, but the issue is also important for my part of the country. I think that the Treasury must realise that, if it abuses the tender process by delaying beyond the arranged timetable, future orders will cost more.

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have referred to the Nimrod's export potential when the contract is awarded. A union official from British Aerospace contacted me this morning. He said that, if the awarding of the contract is delayed further, firms may not be able to keep their technical work forces together. We risk losing that skills base if we delay much longer.
The Chamber must send a message today, on behalf of those hon. Members who are interested in the matter, that the Government must pull their finger out. Many people are waiting for the order to be given; they want to get on with it, as many jobs and export orders depend upon it.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the north-west, like the two of us, and others, would be wronged if the process were reopened after decisions had been taken at the instigation of an American aerospace company? That would go down badly in the United Kingdom, particularly in the north-west.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We understand that the decision has been taken, and the Government must now act to secure those jobs in this country.

Mr. Robert Key: The people in the south of England care about the matter very much. Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read today's Defence Select Committee report on the defence estimates, which says that it will not be able to recommend the defence estimates to the House when they are debated in October unless the Government fulfil the contract and the rest of the defence estimates as promised?

Mr. Evans: I have not yet had the happy opportunity of reading that report. However, I know that it is important to hon. Members that the contract be awarded as soon as possible. Many people expected that to occur before the House rose today, but I understand that the contract will be given during the recess.
Our message is loud and clear: the order contract must be awarded as soon as possible. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, who cannot speak in the debate, has heard that message. I am sure that he will pass it on to those who need to hear it, so that action can be taken.
Other aircraft and missile orders besides Nimrod are important. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) is interested in the matter as well. For instance, there is the Hawk trainer aircraft. I am delighted to see several Labour Members in the Chamber, some of whom signed the early-day motion in an attempt to prevent the export orders of Hawks to Indonesia using bogus information supplied by people who have no interest in defence manufacturing in this country. They would happily see those jobs exported to France, Germany and Sweden. I am delighted that the Government are turning a blind eye to them, and will


support those exports. It is important for defence manufacturing skills in the north-west that we support the Hawk trainer aircraft.
As well as jobs in the defence manufacturing industry, many other jobs in related industries will be affected. Local hotels, shops and other businesses provide services to defence manufacturing. We saw the damage that was done during the 1960s when the TSR2 order was cancelled. British Aerospace in Preston lost many jobs, and there was an enormous knock-on effect throughout the economy. People talk about those job losses even today.
I turn now to Royal Ordnance, as I have concentrated mainly on British Aerospace aircraft. It is a major employer in my area. Other companies involved in the defence industry provide many jobs in my constituency.

Mr. Atkins: Leyland Trucks.

Mr. Evans: Including Leyland Trucks, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
Royal Ordnance has three offices in the north-west, at Chorley, Blackburn and Radway Green, which between them employ 1,500 highly qualified technical and managerial staff. They also use several dozen subcontractors, and that accounts for a further 5,000 jobs. The peace dividend has meant falling orders for the north-west. The company is finding it difficult to compete against overseas competitors, which are often state-sponsored.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has taken several trips at the behest of British Aerospace. Should he not declare an interest in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chamber is not the place to make such complaints. All hon. Members are familiar with the procedures of the House. They know that they can declare an interest in the House if they so desire, or through the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr. Evans: I have no problems with that; the information is there for all to see. British Aerospace, Samlesbury, is in my constituency, and, unlike the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I stand up and speak in support of my constituents' jobs. I am not trying to destroy their jobs; I am backing them.
I call upon the Ministry of Defence to look seriously at the imminent contract for the SRA 1236 competition for a stand-off bunker-busting weapon, and to consider the implications for the north-west, without compromising the quality of weaponry in the infantry, should the contract go abroad. I am sure that some of the old doubts remain: such as, should we spend vast sums of money developing our own aircraft and munitions when we could buy cheaper abroad? That is an extremely dangerous path to tread.
No one could call me a friend of subsidies—I deplore the propping up of ailing state industries, many of which would be recreated under a Labour Government. However, our lean armaments industry is neither subsidised nor ailing. I am afraid that, if we ignore the

strategic importance of the defence industry in the north-west and destroy it, we will never get it back. We will lose those skilled workers to France, Germany, the United States and elsewhere. We cannot afford to lose the technological and the strategic edge.
For example, if we were to import cheap Russian planes because the market is good at present and there is easy access to spares and munitions, what would happen if a hardline nationalist or communist took over in the Kremlin and denied us access to those parts? We would have squandered our technological lead, and we would be at the mercy of an unfriendly power. I urge the Government to take that factor into consideration.
There are other projects in the pipeline, such as the future large aircraft and the future offensive aircraft. We must ensure that we award the orders and contracts and look to the long-term future of the British defence manufacturing industry—of which hon. Members should be proud, rather than sitting back and carping at every opportunity. We must get behind that industry and support those men and women who are producing the aircraft, and who are taking a lead in exporting to the world and providing a great service to this country.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean no disrespect to the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, but several hon. Members were expecting the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to come to the Dispatch Box and make an announcement about the replacement maritime patrol aircraft, which affects hundreds of my constituents who work for British Aerospace in Prestwick. I ask you to demand that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement comes to the Dispatch Box today to answer the call by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and to make that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the Government to decide who appears at the Dispatch Box.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate, and on using the opportunity to raise the defence industry's interests in the north-west. I know that he and other hon. Members representing constituencies in the region—not least my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who is in his place sharing the ministerial Bench with me—work hard to impress on the Government the importance of the industry.
I also mention my right hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Southport (Mr. Banks), for Chorley (Mr. Dover), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). If I have missed out any others, I apologise. I shall be even-handed in this matter, because I recognise the interest of the constituency of Bury—

Mr. Pike: Burnley.

Mr. Taylor: Burnley—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I know Burnley, at the top end of the Rossendale valley, because my father came from Whitworth, so the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that it was a mere slip of the tongue.
I recognise the interest of the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), where my mother was born, and the interest of even the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. Matthew Banks: And our hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).

Mr. Taylor: And our hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).

Mr. Atkins: Hot Ayr.

Mr. Taylor: That was an unworthy intervention. I recognise the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that the Leader of the House is in his place and as he is responsible for business, would it not be appropriate for him to bring the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the Chamber so that he could be told—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that. It is a matter for the Government to decide who is at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Taylor: It is important for me to place it on the record, for the benefit of Members on both sides of the Chamber, that the questions under consideration are for decision by the Government. They are under the closest consideration, and there is not much more to it than that—except that, in our different roles, I share with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester the responsibility for letting other Ministers know just how forceful have been the opinions expressed, and their importance in relation to the north-west in particular, and to other regions as well. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that I will not short-change them in getting across the strength of their message.

Dr. John Reid: No one in here feels anything—

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.

Dr. Reid: At least I am here, unlike the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who has not had the guts to come in and explain to the House why important defence contracts, which have been delayed for a year, have been further delayed. Why is he not here to respond to the defence procurement issues that have been raised?

Mr. Taylor: I defer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all matters of order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rising on a point of order, so I resumed my place. As it is, he has merely taken up valuable time that I should like to have spent addressing my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The contribution of the north-west to this industry is a major one. It is estimated that, in 1993–94, 12,000 people were employed directly by the defence industry in the north-west. The full employment impact is, of course, much greater, given the multiplier effects on indirect employment.
There are well-known centres of excellence in the north-west. British Aerospace Military Aircraft, based at Warton and Samlesbury, is world famous for producing a succession of splendid aircraft. The Hawk, Harrier, Tornado and now Eurofighter are all world-competitive products, of which the region can be justly proud. British Aerospace is the United Kingdom's leading exporter of manufactured goods. GEC Marine's VSEL shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness is another such centre. As Minister with special responsibility for the north-west, I visit the region regularly, and I hope to visit the Barrow region in the near future.
Behind those companies, however, lies a long supply chain of smaller companies whose interests must not be ignored. They are the backbone of the competitiveness of our major defence equipment suppliers.

Mr. Pike: I accept that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has rightly made the case for British Aerospace, but many small companies are also involved in the Orion project. Will the Minister recognise that those companies and their jobs are just as important to the north-west and to Lancashire as British Aerospace is?

Mr. Taylor: The north-west and small companies in the north-west have been handsomely represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. They have no equivocation in their responsibility for supporting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Taylor: I fell to the temptation of wanting to be direct in engaging with my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I should like say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. and hon. Friends have no difficulty or equivocation in standing up for small business, for large defence contractors and for the defence of their country generally. They have no difficulty reconciling those duties, and they discharge them admirably.
I cannot say the same for Labour Members, who have a long history of not wanting to be associated in any way with the export of arms that are intended for destruction. Those who can come to terms with this country's fighting requirements can look that straight in the eye and have no problem with it, but Labour Members are humbugs on this subject.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making statements that are not correct, and he should be careful that he does not mislead the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own speech. I hope that I shall not get any further points of order that are not genuine points of order. I have waited in vain for many years to get one of those in this place, and I have not succeeded yet.

Mr. Taylor: Having been rebuked, but kindly, by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, once already today, I shall endeavour to discharge the rest of the debate in a manner that is as helpful as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley.
I want my hon. Friend to know that my Department has been active in seeking to ensure that smaller suppliers' interests are not ignored. This activity has included working with the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace in developing their role in providing support to companies in the north-west. The Department of Trade and Industry has also funded the Society of British Aerospace Companies' competitiveness challenge programme. The British Aerospace Military Aircraft division at Warton played a significant part in the programme by leading the work on supply chains.
If I may, I should like to focus on the aerospace industry for a moment, as it accounts for the largest element of Government expenditure, in terms of both defence programmes and important civil programmes, the latter of which are supported by Government through launch aid and the DTI's research and demonstration scheme, CARAD—the civil aviation research and demonstration scheme.
My Department has an especially strong relationship with the industry, which was reflected in the joint statement issued by the DTI and the Society of British Aerospace Companies towards the end of 1995. Our developing relationship was fully recognised by the society through the launch of its national aerospace framework earlier this year.
This is an impressive document, and I pay tribute to the society and to its leading company members for producing one of the most systematic documents produced by an industrial sector that I have seen. The

framework provides an excellent basis for the trade association, member companies and the Government to work together in partnership to benefit industry and the economy as a whole. I hope that the society will continue to work with the DTI on updating the document.
Government are, of course, close to the defence industry.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Taylor: No. I have little time to try to conclude the debate.
The Ministry of Defence is British industry's largest customer, and all its decisions on major procurements impact greatly on industry, including companies in the north-west. My Department is the sponsor of the industry, and we have recognised the importance of the sector by setting up the aerospace and defence industries directorate earlier this year. The directorate provides the focus for the DTI's relations with the industry, and works with the MOD on defence procurement policy and projects.
The Government have made it clear in their statements on defence procurement policy—for example, in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in May—that industrial implications will be thoroughly examined in all procurement decisions. That is certainly true of the current procurements that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Earlier this year, the Defence and the Trade and Industry Select Committees made recommendations regarding my Department's role in assessing the bids for Ministry of Defence procurement competitions. Indeed, the Committees expressed some satisfaction with the DTI's role in major procurement cases. The Committees urged the Government to extend that role to include smaller procurements.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Assisted Places

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent consultations she has had with independent schools concerning the assisted places scheme. [37265]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I regularly discuss the assisted places scheme with representatives of independent schools.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of the assisted places scheme to many children and their parents in Batley and Spen? Is she also aware that many people consider the scheme to be good value for money? It would be abolished by the Opposition, who cannot even get their own sums right.

Mrs. Gillan: I am well aware of the value of the assisted places scheme to many families and children throughout the country, including, in my hon. Friend's constituency, those who attend Batley grammar school. My hon. Friend is right: assisted pupils obtain good results—better results than similar maintained school pupils. Assisted pupils obtain up to three A-level grades over all subjects. The Labour party is completely wrong—at best, it has got its mathematics wrong and at worst, it is playing a con trick. Completely phasing out the assisted places scheme would still save only about £24 million a year, provide fewer than 1,000 extra teachers and reduce average infant class sizes by less than half a pupil. It is still nowhere near the Opposition's pledge to eliminate classes of more than 30 pupils.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the hon. Lady know that, since its inception, the scheme has taken approximately £20 million in Wales? Does she accept that it would have been far better to have spent that sum on modernising, extending and refurbishing the older schools? Why not ditch the assisted places scheme, and the wretched voucher scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The average cost of an assisted place is somewhat higher, but of the same order as an average maintained pupil place. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that 80 per cent. of the assisted pupils come from socio-economic groups C1 and E—the lower-middle and working classes. The scheme is of great value to parents and pupils throughout the country.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says about the scheme, but may I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider reintroducing in the next Parliament the direct grant scheme, which was infinitely better than the assisted places scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says about the direct grant scheme but, as we all know, many of the direct grant schools were forced to become independent schools by the policies of the last Labour Government, if anyone can remember them.

Mr. Kilfoyle:: I congratulate the Secretary of State on obtaining extra money for the assisted places scheme, thus enabling the imminent Labour Government to reduce class sizes more quickly. Will she now fight for equivalent funding for the 86,000 extra children who are to be in the system this year and the 60,000 who are to be in it next year on the same basis as she proposes to subsidise the independent schools under the assisted places scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is up to his old tricks. He knows that the cost of the scheme is £114 million this year, rising to £118 million next year. He also knows that he could not phase out the scheme immediately as, under present legislation, it would take three years to phase it out. He has repeatedly asserted that the money would be used to reduce class sizes, but in the first year of phasing out, he would save no more than £5 million. However, if those children were educated back in the maintained sector at the cost per head of educating a child at Hackney Downs, there would be no change from the money that we put into the assisted places scheme.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Labour party is against assisted places in schools but in favour of assisted places in the shadow Cabinet?

Mrs. Gillan: If the Labour party is so keen to abolish assisted places, it had better start at home first.

Access to Work

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the impact of the new employer contributions on support for disabled people through the access to work scheme. [37266]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): TheEmployment Service will be monitoring the new arrangements for access to work to ensure continuing effective help for disabled people.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Is it not already clear that this new scheme, by its reduced funding compared with that of the original scheme, is already having an adverse effect on both employed and self-employed disabled people, as they must now rely for equipment on their employers or fund it themselves? Does the Minister accept that the scheme will have a particularly adverse effect on people who are self-employed, who work in small firms or who are in voluntary organisations that employ many disabled people? Does he think that it is fair for the Government to impose a penalty on employers who have the best record on employment of disabled people?

Mr. Paice: No, I do not accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman. First, there is a considerable increase in funding for access to work this year compared with


funding for the original scheme—it is up by 50 per cent. Secondly, the contributions that would be expected either from an employer or from a self-employed individual are capped, and the average contributions are extremely low. On average, a self-employed person would be expected to pay £240, and, based on experience, it is likely that an employer would be expected to pay £540. I think that those are perfectly reasonable contributions to expect people to make to help disabled people. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the access to work scheme is designed to help employers and individuals overcome problems created by disability. As has always been the case, if people are unemployed—I think that we would all agree that they are in the most need—they will make no contribution at all.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On all the evidence available to the Minister, does he accept that employer contributions are unfair to small businesses and to the self-employed? If the Minister really wants to support small firms and self-employed disabled people, will he now review their liability to pay up to £2,000 a year under access to work? Does the Minister accept that small firms simply do not understand why they are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but not from employer contributions under access to work? What is the difference?

Mr. Paice: The difference is in the legislation.

Mr. Clarke: Which one was wrong?

Mr. Paice: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is making these points, because he totally opposed any exclusion for small firms in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Labour party—to a man and to a woman—went through the Lobbies on that legislation against the interests of small firms. It is somewhat hypocritical now to pray in aid the support of small businesses. The fact is that, as always, we have had to find a balance between cost to the taxpayer and the help that we want to provide to the disabled. I am amazed to find that the hon. Gentleman continues to be part of that group of Labour Members who seem to believe that the public purse is bottomless.

Schools (Security)

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to enhance the security of schools. [37267]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This question is about school security. Given that the matter of children's safety is involved in the answer to it, however, I should like to express my sympathy and that of Conservative Members to the parents, family and friends of Caroline Dickinson, the Cornish schoolgirl who was so tragically murdered last week in France. I should like also to express our sympathy and support for the head, governors and staff of her school, Launceston college.
The Government have accepted in full the 22 recommendations of the working group on school security.

Mr. Spring: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reassuring comments. What she said about the recent tragedies is endorsed by all hon. Members.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful bids made by two schools in my constituency—St. Felix middle school in Newmarket and Mildenhall upper school—for closed circuit television, which will be greatly welcomed not only by parents, governors and teachers but by the community at large?

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome. More than 100 schools have been able to benefit from the Home Office's CCTV scheme, which will be a useful addition to the security of children at the schools involved.

Mr. Turner: I know that the Secretary of State has already expressed sympathy to the parents, children and, indeed, the whole community in Wolverhampton, who were devastated by the tragic attack on the children and adults at St. Luke's school two weeks ago. I should like to say a very sincere thank you to all hon. Members who have, through the early-day motion that I tabled, expressed their good wishes and sympathy to everyone involved.
In view of that tragic accident, and many others that we have witnessed, would the Secretary of State consider bringing forward the moneys that I know that she has earmarked for next year into this year's budget? There was a call at the Conference of Local Education Authorities' conference last week, urging the Secretary of State to make more resources available. Wolverhampton is spending £60,000 this year, but that is wholly inadequate to meet security needs in our schools. Will she please consider giving the money in this financial year rather than the next?

Mrs. Shephard: This is of course a matter of great concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, I have been in touch with St. Luke's school in Wolverhampton. As he knows, schools and local education authorities are already spending on school security. The way in which the money will be spent is important. Schools have varying needs, and it is necessary that LEAs and schools conduct a thoroughly professional risk assessment of the type of arrangements that need to be made to improve school security. That is why they have already acted on some of the working group's recommendations on security, why we have already allocated more money through the CCTV scheme, why I announced yesterday that 60 schools would benefit from the schools renewal challenge fund to help them with their security arrangements, why LEAs already have guidance to help them decide how best to allocate the extra money when it comes and why schools will receive guidance in September. A great deal of work needs to be done. We will make new moneys available, but we have to be certain that they are allocated according to a school's need and spent in the best way.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the money that will be raised from this year's Burbage charity bike aid in my constituency will go towards CCTV in local schools? Will she congratulate the organisers on that decision and wish them well at that popular event, which is enjoyed by thousands of my constituents each year?

Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on their effort to help with arrangements for school security. There will no doubt be other such money-raising efforts but, of course, any money spent has to fit into a sensible framework to ensure that it is spent in the best way. As I said, the Government will be making extra money available.

Mr. Don Foster: I join the Secretary of State in her expressions of sympathy to those affected by the recent tragedies and repeat my congratulations on her seeking and gaining widespread support for the measures now being proposed to improve school safety. Although it may be impossible to implement immediately, does she agree that it would be sensible to agree in principle that, over time, all schools should have a single boundary?

Mrs. Shephard: Although I realise that the question was sensibly meant, that would be extremely difficult to put into practice because of the different geographical locations of school premises. It is important that schools assess their needs in the light of their own physical circumstances. In some cases, they may need a single boundary or entry point. The purpose of the conference that we intend to hold in the autumn will be to discuss best practice. Although there is a great deal of good practice, we found that those in the working group did not necessarily know about it. I take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board and the conference might be able to disseminate it, but there will also be many others.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about making additional funding available for school security. However, is it not important that we should not allow local authorities to get away with hiding behind the Government in respect of such an important issue? If a local education authority believes that priorities need to be addressed in terms of school security, should it not use the funds that are currently being wasted elsewhere rather than blame the Government for its own failure to act?

Mrs. Shephard: Many local education authorities are extremely concerned about those matters. They already have—as we have just dispatched it—guidance on the arrangements that will be made for the new GEST—grants for education support and training scheme—money that will be earmarked for school security. The money will be available next year. If there were any local education authorities that needed reminding, they have their reminder.

New Businesses (Failure Rate)

Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the failure rate in new businesses on employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. [37268]

Mr. Paice: No direct assessment has been made, but research shows that new business survival, and hence employment potential, is affected by the level of business management skills and experience of the proprietor.

Ms Anderson: Is not investment crucial to the long-term success of new businesses and the creation of jobs? Does the Minister accept that Britain now has a lower level of investment than in 1989? Could that be why the number of jobs in manufacturing has fallen by 500,000 over the past five years?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Lady falls into the trap of equating numbers of jobs in a sector—particularly manufacturing—with the health of the sector. For decades, jobs have been shed in manufacturing because of automation and technology. That does not mean that the sector is less advanced or profitable—probably the reverse. All businesses need to invest, both in equipment—which is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—and in their work force—which is my responsibility. That is why the Government have made a range of proposals targeted at small businesses and businesses generally to encourage them to invest in their work force.

Sir John Cope: We all support reductions in the failure rate of small businesses. The Government are doing a great deal—through business links and other schemes—to reduce that failure rate. Does my hon. Friend not deplore, as I do, the emphasis that the question places on the failure rate? The main employment effect of small businesses has been a massive increase in employment as a result of the massive increase in the number of small businesses since 1979 of about 1 million.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There are now more than 50 per cent. more businesses than there were in 1979. That in itself is good for employment. He is also right that we should not dwell on what are often described as failures. Just because a business may cease to operate does not mean that it is a failure. [Laughter.] In their laughter, the Opposition demonstrate how little they understand about businesses. A business may stop trading in the same name because it has been sold or because the proprietor has retired, or for a whole range of reasons. The NatWest survey of small businesses demonstrated that 73 per cent. of cessations were for reasons not associated with bankruptcy or solvency.

Mr. Meacher: May I associate myself and the Opposition with the words of concern and sympathy expressed by the Secretary of State about the tragic death of Caroline Dickinson last week?
Will the Minister confirm that the company failure rate, which we believe is significant, is running at nearly 1,000 a week and increasing, and that, each day, in the first three months of 1996, 2,500 people lost their jobs? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the impression that Ministers like to give—that unemployment is falling—the more accurate labour force survey shows that the number of people in employment fell by 74,000 in the first three months of this year and that there are still 1 million people fewer in jobs than there were the day that the Prime Minister entered Downing street? Is he not ashamed that, since 1979, Britain has had the worst job creation record of any major industrial nation?

Mr. Paice: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took so long in asking his question because as he did so his facts became more and more obscure. Unemployment has been


falling consistently for a considerable time, thanks not only to the Government's economic policies but to our resistance of policies that would have damaged employment prospects: the social chapter and the minimum wage. Those are the Labour party's policies and they would destroy employment. Wherever the hon. Gentleman would care to look throughout the rest of Europe, he will find countries suffering from those problems. Unemployment in the major European countries is much higher than ours, and is often still rising.

Mr. Batiste: Is it not inevitable that, if there is a substantial increase in new business start-ups, there will also be a corresponding increase in the number of business failures? Is not the creation of new businesses the best way of increasing employment? Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to maintaining that momentum by opposing the national minimum wage and the social chapter, which are so destructive to businesses and so often lead to failure on the continent?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important that we do whatever we can to encourage small businesses and the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that leads to their success. That is what the Government's policies are directed at. He is also right to remind us again about the minimum wage. Conservative Members have always been amazed by the fact that the Opposition have never said how they would resolve the problem of the restoration of differentials—a problem that is underlying the minimum wage and would destroy more jobs than anything else. We await with interest to see how they plan to address that issue.

Unemployed (Policies)

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies she intends to pursue in respect of those unemployed for 12 months or more. [37269]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We shall continue to pursue the policies that have seen long-term unemployment fall by more than a quarter since the start of 1994.

Mr. Winnick: When will Ministers apologise for the fact that the number of people out of work for 12 months or more has more than doubled since April 1979? Does that figure not show that unemployment has increased substantially during the 17 years of Tory government? The Minister is nodding. How much more human misery is to be inflicted on the country before this wretched Government are turned out at the election?

Mr. Forth: I can indeed confirm that unemployment is higher now than it was in 1979, as it is right across the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the 1970s, when everybody was doing well in terms of employment and unemployment. In the 1990s, life is tougher and more difficult. Compared with our European partners and competitors, we have served the employed and unemployed so much better because our policies have turned out to be more relevant to the needs

of the 1990s. Opposition Members persist in turning the clock back to the 1970s—not only in their faulty memories but in their yearnings for policies that have long since passed—but the result of putting such policies into effect would be a return to the conditions of the 1970s, which were so much worse than they are today.

Mr. Ian McCartney: As part of the Government's programme of encouraging the unemployed to seek work, they have signed a contract with a company called Trinity Newspapers, which produces for distribution in jobcentres in England and Wales a magazine known as Jobsearch. Among other things, the magazine invites vulnerable unemployed men and women to take up prostitution as a business opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) has asked the Minister to withdraw that offensive magazine and its job advertisements, but was refused on the ground that the Department believes that the unemployed should have the widest possible access to job opportunities.
It is scandalous that such a magazine and such advertisements should have been distributed to vulnerable unemployed people. The Government's history of massaging the unemployment figures is wholly unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State today issue instructions for the withdrawal of the magazine and its accompanying advertisements, and initiate an inquiry into how it was ever distributed in the first place?

Mr. Forth: Before the hon. Gentleman massages himself into hysteria, I advise a little more calm. Of course I shall have a look at what he has described. If there is any substance to it, we shall see what can and should be done. [Interruption.] There is no point in pushing a piece of paper across the Table at me, because I do not know its provenance or the circumstances in which it came to be written. I prefer the approach of calm investigation and reflection to the hysterical outbursts that characterise the behaviour of Opposition Members.
We shall have a good look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and then, I have no doubt, we will take the appropriate action.

Sensorily Impaired People

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the levels of employment and unemployment among young people with sensory impairments after they leave full-time education or training. [37270]

Mr. Paice: The Department is funding a new national survey of disabled people and their employment, education and training, to provide information on different age groups and the impact of different disabilities.

Mr. Livingstone: Given that the unemployment rate among those who are hearing impaired is twice the national average, and that only one quarter of those who are visually impaired are in work, can the Minister guarantee that this survey will give us the tools that we need to analyse the pattern of discrimination? In particular, will he see what happens to people who have been through training programmes, to find out how effective those are, where the people end up, and what is the long-term impact of the training programmes?

Mr. Pake: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The survey will investigate the nature and severity of disability, employment status, characteristics of employment—permanent, temporary, part time, full time—qualifications and training, income and benefits, equipment, aids and adaptations, working arrangements, attitudes and experiences in the labour market, and household composition. What is more, the exercise starts today.

Sensorily Impaired Pupils

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils with hearing impairments are being taught in mainstream schools. [37271]

Mrs. Gillan: Statistics on the number of pupils with hearing impairments in mainstream schools are not collected centrally.

Mr. Timms: I am aware of the Minister's close personal interest in this matter. In the light of that, does she agree that we need data on the numbers and experiences of youngsters with disabilities in mainstream schools so that we can ensure that mainstreaming is working effectively for them? Should not such data be collected by the Government?

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging my interest in this matter; of course I shall look at what he says. Subject to certain conditions, local education authorities have a duty to provide mainstream places for children with special educational needs when that is what parents want. We have encouraged LEAs to integrate children with SEN in the main stream. I have seen radio aids being used in the classroom very effectively—they certainly level the ground for children with a hearing impairment.
While I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman might like to know of Langdon secondary school, in his constituency, which has a learning support department that has recently twinned with the effectiveness division of the Department for Education and Employment. Teachers and pupils have visited the Department, and art from that school is on display in Sanctuary buildings.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend welcome the nursery voucher scheme, which gives an opportunity to spot at an early stage children with special educational needs, particularly those with hearing difficulties?

Mrs. Gillan: Of course I welcome wholeheartedly the nursery voucher scheme. I am pleased that, from April next year, parents of four-year-olds will have access to good-quality nursery education throughout the country, whatever the needs of the child.

A-level Results

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been carried out to investigate the factors underlying the difference in A-level results between boys and girls. [37272]

Mr. Paice: A number of independent studies have been published, including a recent report funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

Mr. Rendel: The Minister is no doubt aware of the recent report that the differences may be due to the extra flair and self-confidence that young males are said to have at that age. If that is anything like the truth, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that it is not simply the format of A-level examinations that is producing the difference between males and females?

Mr. Paice: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman ascribes that series of assumptions. It is interesting that the gender difference at GCSE level is dramatically reduced by the time children get to A-levels. We also know—although I cannot explain it—that boys get more grade As while girls get more of all the other pass grades. No clear lessons can be drawn from that, but we are anxious to ensure that exams—whatever form they take—are right for all young people, regardless of gender.

Mr. Dunn: Is it not essential to maintain single-sex education for girls and boys, given that girls develop at a different rate in schools assigned to their sex only? This is the Government's policy and not that of the Opposition, who would destroy single-sex schools, grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools and go back to the old 1960s notion of neighbourhood comprehensive schools.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows that the Government's policy is based on diversity and choice. It should be for children—when they reach a reasonable age—and their parents to decide on the right form of education, whether it be at grant-maintained schools, LEA schools or single-sex schools, but they must also decide which qualifications are right for them. That is why we have set out not only to maintain and improve the rigour of A-levels, but to provide general national vocational qualifications and modern apprenticeships so that something is available to everyone to make the most of their talents.

Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister accept that we are seeing a significant change in the relative performance at examination level of boys and girls, and that the consequences of that change extend far beyond the classroom? Is it not the case that the Government have failed to recognise this change and to take any action on the important issues that it raises? Will he give a commitment today that, as a useful first step, he will require the Office for National Statistics to provide statistics and information on how boys and girls perform as part of individual school inspections?

Mr. Paice: The Office for Standards in Education has already done that.

Teaching

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on teaching skills and methods employed in schools. [37273]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: All teachers need to be equipped with the most effective teaching methods and to know when to use them.

Mr. Arnold: Have not a number of reports highlighted the results of the trendy lefty education and training methods that we have had in far too many schools, particularly in inner cities, since the 1960s? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, having introduced testing in the teeth of Labour opposition—which has highlighted where the shortcomings are to be found—the Government will continue their work on teacher training and get back to the proper teaching methods that will bring the results that the country is crying out for?

Mrs. Shephard: We have put in place several reforms of initial teacher training to ensure that teachers are equipped as practically as possible. We are also reviewing in-service training. Among the things that we have already announced are the 25 literacy and numeracy centres, the headlamp scheme to train newly appointed heads and a new national professional qualification for headship. In September, I intend to announce plans to reform initial teacher training and to introduce a national curriculum for it to ensure that all teachers are trained in the most effective manner.

Mrs. Wise: Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the teaching skill, and whatever methods are employed, the effectiveness of teaching is enhanced if class sizes are smaller rather than steadily increasing, as they are at present?

Mrs. Shephard: We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about smaller classes and how they would seek to fund them by raiding the assisted places scheme budget, thereby depriving children from some of the worst-off families in the land of the chance of an excellent education in the independent sector. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows that the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales has told her Front-Bench spokesmen that their figures take no account of how the extra money identified by them would reach schools or of the extra costs of, for example, accommodation for the additional number. I am sure that she will be concerned about the fact that Labour's advisers say that its figures do not add up.

Mr. Redwood: Over the summer, will my right hon. Friend reconfirm that traditional methods and whole-class teaching have much to offer to improve primary school standards, and will she give strong support to the chief inspector, who is doing admirable work to highlight both good and bad performance and to offer some leadership in the profession?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, the chief inspector has provided some stringent comments on what needs to be done to improve education standards. Teachers should certainly be equipped for whole-class teaching to provide active instruction rather than passive supervision. That is what we intend to put in place.

Higher Education

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to maintain standards in higher education. [37274]

Mr. Forth: Prime responsibility for maintaining standards in higher education rests with the academic institutions, acting individually and collectively.

Dr. Wright: Does the Minister agree that quality in higher education depends on having common degree standards in different institutions, from Birmingham to Bradford and from Leicester to Luton? What is his response to the evidence, now confirmed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, that institutions differ markedly in degree standards both between institutions and between subjects, sometimes deliberately? Is not that unfair to students who rely on degree standards for entry to postgraduate work? Does it not devalue higher education?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is a system of quality assurance in place and that there is a continuing effort to try to improve it to make it even more effective. I wonder whether his comments reveal the hidden threat to the academic autonomy of our higher education institutions that his party poses. One could readily conclude from his words that he would seek to impose a straitjacket on our higher education sector, which has for so long prided itself on its autonomy and independence of government.

Nursery Education

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to ensure access to nursery education for children with special needs. [37275]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 will ensure that all children, including those with special educational needs, have an equal opportunity to experience good-quality nursery education.

Ms Jackson: Has not research in Britain and America shown that flat-rate vouchers impact against children with special needs because their education requirements inevitably cost much more? Precisely what is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that children with special needs will not be denied places, which are of particular importance to them, in nursery schools?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree that nursery education is particularly important for children with special educational needs, to which a lot of attention was paid during the passage of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. The new money made available as a result of the voucher scheme will contribute to meeting the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs. Local education authority budgets will be reduced only by £1,100 for each four-year-old who has a maintained place. If a place costs more, the difference is left with the LEA. If a child returns to the LEA for its nursery place, so does the money.

Higher Education Funding

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the planned funding of higher education in the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. [37277]

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received nearly 700 representations about higher education funding this year.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister comment on Cambridge university's decision to accept money from British American Tobacco in view of that company's falsification of data about the addictiveness of tobacco? Does the Minister think that it is desirable for higher education institutions to be pushed into a financial position so extreme that they must accept money from such sources?

Mr. Forth: No, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a decision by an entirely autonomous higher education institution.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council has suggested that all funding for education, including higher education, is damaged by the area cost adjustment—which supposedly acts to the detriment of Lancashire and in favour of the south of England? Is my hon. Friend aware of any Labour-controlled council that benefits from ACA that would forgo it? Is he further aware that Labour Front Benchers do not have a policy on that matter?

Mr. Forth: I am not surprised by my right hon. Friend's last observation. We all eagerly await the emergence of Labour policy on the issue. My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. When we have a unanimous view from local authority organisations on the area cost adjustment, we will be prepared to consider it. I hear no unified voice from those bodies, but I await the day.

Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister is aware of the furore in the university sector in respect of higher education funding. Is not it the case, as vice-chancellors throughout the land are saying, that if the equipment used to teach postgraduate and other students of science and applied science is denied them, that will affect the quality of the degrees that are awarded? Ten per cent. of university income comes from overseas students. If standards fall—the Minister has seen the warning signs-higher education funding will be in dreadful trouble.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman used the word furore. Of the 140 higher education institutions, we have received between 50 and 100 letters. Of the country's 1.4 million students, we have received 200 to 300 letters, and from a total of 55,000 staff, we have been inundated with 200 to 300 letters. That gives some idea of the "furore".

Nursery Voucher Scheme

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure high education standards in those places administering the nursery voucher scheme; and if she will make a statement. [37278]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Any establishment participating in the nursery education voucher scheme must work towards a set of desirable outcomes for children's learning, submit to educational inspection and publish information for parents. Those and other detailed requirements will ensure a consistently high standard over the whole scheme.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance on the quality of nursery education for four-year-olds. Will he give the further assurance that no three-year-old currently in nursery education will lose out under the scheme? What effect will the scheme have on the education of children by the age of five, in terms of the tests that, according to national press reports, they are likely to receive at that age?

Mr. Squire: The voucher scheme has no impact on three-year-olds—although I expect that, under the next Conservative Government, there will be a reasonable prospect of extending the scheme to cover three-year-olds. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a report from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on base line assessment, and we look forward to full public consultation this autumn.

Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Minister yet assessed the extra costs involved in providing a high-quality education for children with special needs in the voucher scheme? If he has not done it yet, why not?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say a moment ago that the cost of a statemented child over and above the £1,100 voucher value will be unaffected by the arrival of the voucher. The hon. Lady will be aware that power has been taken in the legislation to ensure that pre-statemented special needs children—an important category—will receive assistance from local education authorities. That will be part and parcel of the annual negotiations with local authorities in the ordinary way.

Grant-maintained Schools

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to monitor standards in the grant-maintained sector. [37279]

Mr. Robin Squire: Standards in grant-maintained schools are monitored in the same way as in local authority schools, particularly through Office for Standards in Education inspection reports and published performance data.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not surprising that the three grant-maintained schools in my constituency in Sutton are heavily oversubscribed because they have excellent results in public examinations? Does he agree that that is consistent with the Ofsted report, which has judged that 40 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have an excellent achievement record and that 30 per cent. are good and improving? Does he agree that all those achievements will be seriously at risk should we ever have in government a party such as the Labour party, which is hostile to grant-maintained schools and would introduce political control, remove schools' right to manage and spoil children's life chances?

Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. As it refers to standards, Madam Speaker, I trust that you will allow me to correct a statement made from


the Dispatch Box during the previous Education and Employment questions. It specifically referred to the believed fact that Westminster had the highest proportion of pupils achieving five or more grade A to C GCSE results in inner London. While Westminster has good results—better than many local authorities in inner London—I can confirm that Camden has the best results.
My hon. Friend is right in every material particular. The important thing to note is the threat the Labour party poses to grant-maintained schools, notwithstanding the fact that a number of Labour Members choose those self-same schools for their own children.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that one of the main contributions to raising standards in schools comes from the example set by the brilliant pupil who sets the pace and the standard throughout the school? Does he agree that it is a terrible loss to such a school when pacemakers are turned out to go somewhere else? Why have the Government never examined the effect on schools that have been deserted when bright students leave to take up assisted places? When will the Government have an inquiry into that? They have all sorts of figures on assisted places, but they have never examined the damage done to schools, often in the least prosperous areas, when the brightest pupils are plucked from them and put into other schools.

Mr. Squire: I lost the hon. Gentleman a little when he reached his pacemaker, but I think I understand what he is saying. The best response is the truth that the Government believe that schools should reach for the best in every child, regardless of his or her ability. A few schools have too often used as an excuse for their poor performance matters such as the nature of their intake. That must not be an excuse.
On the wider issue of exemplars, the hon. Gentleman may be interested in some recent research which shows that, in areas such as Salisbury and south Birmingham, which have a significant number of selective schools, there is higher performance among the comprehensive schools than the national average and an improvement in recent years which beats the national improvement.

Mr. Pawsey: Given the fact that many parents and teachers are increasingly worried about discipline in the nation's schools, a point borne out by the recent Association of Teachers and Lecturers' survey, what action is being taken in teacher training colleges to emphasise the need to teach and instil discipline in the classroom?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right to highlight an anxiety that every opinion poll that I have seen shows is shared by parents throughout the country. It is important that teachers, whether they are teaching or coming out of training college, should have the ability to maintain order. As my hon. Friend is aware, we intend to legislate this autumn—assuming that there is opportunity—further to strengthen the powers of teachers in that respect.

Grammar Schools

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds she plans to make available over the next three years to set up grammar schools. [37280]

Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend will approve proposals for new schools—including new grammar schools—where they are needed.

Mr. Gunnell: I see that the Minister is offering no money even for this policy, in which she obviously believes. Does she believe that this policy is among those that have led to my selected Conservative opponent in Morley and Rothwell standing down and resigning because, he says, of the arrogance of the approach of some senior Tories?
There are three excellent comprehensive schools in Morley, to which parents are anxious to send their children. Does the Minister realise that, if a grammar school for Morley or south Leeds were created from one of those schools, fewer parents would get the school of first choice?

Mrs. Gillan: As usual, the Labour party has got the wrong end of the stick. We are not about forcing grammar schools on communities that do not want them. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman re-read the White Paper. If he does, he will see that the Conservative party is offering choice to communities—they may choose whether they want a grammar school in their town—unlike the Labour party, which is reported in the Daily Mail last week as
itching to axe the grammars".
That is the Labour party's true agenda. Not satisfied with forcing direct grant grammar schools into the independent sector, it now wants to remove grammar schools throughout the country.

Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a well-run modern selective system such as the one that we have in Buckinghamshire, standards are being driven higher in the grammar schools and in the upper schools which, in the case of some in Buckinghamshire, are achieving results as good as or better than those of comprehensive schools in neighbouring local authorities? Does she agree that that is a tribute to the staff and governors of Buckinghamshire's schools and to the support that they have consistently had from the Buckinghamshire local education authority—in the teeth of hostility from representatives of both Opposition parties?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend and I share that local education authority, so I have no hesitation in endorsing his comments. The schools in Buckinghamshire are an excellent tribute to grammar schools and comprehensive schools. The grammar schools are not bad for other schools. We studied the GCSE results in two areas—Salisbury and south Birmingham—where grammar schools and non-selective schools co-exist. In both areas, the proportion of pupils in the non-selective schools who achieved GCSE grades A to C rose significantly faster than the national average. Grammar schools are good for us.

Mr. Byers: Can the Minister explain how a return to a grammar school system will enhance parental choice when selection, by its nature, takes powers from parents and gives them to individual schools? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who told a delegation of head teachers recently that she personally did not want to see a return to the waste of talent inherent in a form of selection at 11? Do the Government still propose to have


a grammar school in every town? If so, how much would that cost and how many secondary modern schools would be created as a result? Is it not time that the Government put all our children's interests first instead of allowing political dogma to triumph over reason?

Mrs. Gillan: This party always puts the education of children first, as do many members of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman should read the proposals in the White Paper, which would make it easier to set up grammar schools wherever parents want them. The key to our proposals is choice and diversity, whereas the Opposition would remove choice. They would remove grammar schools and assisted places. They would go on to remove other forms of choice too, because their idea of education is to level everybody down whereas ours is to raise standards of education for all.

Education Provision

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment she has made of the diversity of education provision between different local education authorities. [37282]

Mr. Robin Squire: There are grammar, specialist and grant-maintained schools in many parts of England, but their distribution is patchy. In many places, a generalist LEA comprehensive is the only choice of secondary school. The proposals in last month's White Paper will give schools more freedom to develop distinctive strengths, offering more choice for parents.

Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one factor that determines different levels of education provision is the amount of money held back by each education authority to pay for its central services? Is he aware that Derbyshire holds back £642 per pupil whereas neighbouring Staffordshire holds back just £487? Does he agree that the easiest way for Derbyshire to make more money available for its schools is to cut its central services to the level of neighbouring Labour-controlled Staffordshire and make available an extra £155 per pupil straight away?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. There can be no obvious justification for the wide disparity between the proportions of budgets delegated, which is why the issue was raised in the recent White Paper with a commitment to raise it to 95 per cent. of a school's potential budget. On the basis of that budget and the latest figures that I have, Staffordshire emerges as a markedly higher delegator than Derbyshire.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that central funding for Derbyshire is so bad that the schools are in crisis? Louise Orrill, aged nine, points out that, in her class, the teacher no longer has a desk and 40 children are crammed

into a classroom built for 25. Is not that disgraceful? Does not it have a serious impact not only on education but on children's safety?

Mr. Squire: It is disgraceful that some local authorities are so inefficient that they spend disproportionate sums at the centre, denying that money to schools. The decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter resolved by governors on the basis of the funding available to them. It is not a decision that the Government should take, but the Government and schools would be assisted if some local authorities were more efficient.

Sir Michael Shersby: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the education provision for statemented children in grant-maintained schools in Hillingdon? Is it the Government's policy to fund statementing directly? Will he confirm that that is happening in grant-maintained schools in Hillingdon?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising his concerns about the current situation in Hillingdon and the possible threat to the funding of statementing from that authority. As he knows, we are looking into the matter. I can confirm that, under the law, Hillingdon and all LEAs must meet the cost of statementing. It is essential that schools have adequate resources to meet those demands.

Disabled Children (Access to Schools)

Mr. Pearson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has for further developing the access initiative to improve access for disabled children to mainstream schools. [37284]

Mrs. Gillan: Some 800 mainstream schools will benefit from the schools access initiative projects in 1996–97 to improve access to the curriculum for disabled pupils.

Mr. Pearson: While I welcome the £45,000 that was allocated to Dudley metropolitan borough council on a one-off basis this financial year, if that funding is not repeated in future, the parents of children with physical disabilities will view it as tokenism and a cheap pre-election bribe. What will the Government do to ensure that all children with physical disabilities gain access to their local mainstream schools?

Mrs. Gillan: I would not seek to make political mileage out of the issue, but the funding demonstrates the Government's commitment to integrating pupils with special needs into mainstream schools wherever that is feasible. We shall look at the expenditure for 1997–98 soon, and we shall take a decision about whether to extend the initiative based on what we have learnt from the 1996–97 bidding round. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman had the decency to acknowledge Dudley's successful bid, which enabled four schools to improve access for the disabled.

Transmissible Encephalopathies (Sheep)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): If you will forgive me, Madam Speaker, I must begin with an apology. I am afraid that I have lost my voice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] I think that that will be the most popular part of my statement. I shall, therefore, have to lean directly over the microphone.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the engineers will increase the sound from that microphone.

Mr. Hogg: Madam Speaker, my original remark is more popular than your later observation. However, with permission, I would like to make a statement about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep. The subject was discussed at the Agriculture Council on Monday, and Commissioner Fischler said that he intended to put forward proposals for controls on sheep to apply across the Community.
Scrapie, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of sheep and goats, has been known for more than 200 years. There is no evidence that it is linked to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. CJD occurs at approximately the same level in countries with and without scrapie. I have recently received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advice Committee—SEAC—that bovine spongiform encephalopathy could theoretically become established in the sheep flock. It notes that in experiments—the results of which have been published—one in six sheep experimentally challenged orally with BSE brain material succumbed to an encephalopathy and that, when their brain material was tested in mice, the same strain type as BSE was found. It notes also the possibility that some sheep could have been exposed to feed contaminated with the BSE agent before the ruminant feed ban was introduced in 1988.
The committee points out that there is no evidence of BSE occurring naturally in the sheep flock. However, SEAC is concerned that, while there is no evidence to that effect, scrapie might be masking BSE in the sheep flock. On the basis of present knowledge, SEAC has made three recommendations: first, that the Government should consider the issue further with our European Union partners, and we are doing that. We are keeping in close contact with the French Government, whose scientific committee equivalent to SEAC has made certain recommendations on the basis of the laboratory evidence about BSE in sheep and of concerns about scrapie. At the Agriculture Council on 22 July, Commissioner Fischler announced that the Commission intends to formulate proposals for the removal of certain offals of sheep and goats from the human and animal food chains. Those proposals are to be considered initially by the Standing Veterinary Committee in early August and then by other EU expert committees.
SEAC's second recommendation was that the Government should give early consideration to removing the brains of sheep, whatever their source, over six months of age from the human food chain. The agriculture departments are today issuing for consultation a proposal for the heads of all sheep and goats to be removed and destroyed in the same way as specified bovine material. That measure would go further than SEAC recommended,

taking into account the practical difficulty of distinguishing the age of sheep at slaughter. It should not have a major economic impact as the vast majority of sheep's heads are already destroyed. It is worth noting that sheepmeat for human consumption comes predominantly from young lambs under 12 months of age.
We intend to reach a final decision in the light of responses to our consultation paper and progress in the EU discussion. Action on the issue at EU level would be preferable, but it is desirable, on a precautionary basis, that those measures are put in place promptly.
SEAC's third recommendation is that further research should be done to establish the levels of scrapie occurring naturally in sheep and to investigate further the risks of BSE transmission to the United Kingdom sheep flock. We accept that and some relevant research has already begun.
I emphasise that those steps are being taken out of an abundance of caution. There is no direct threat to human health. With the exception of the consumption of brains, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to change their eating habits. I repeat: there is no evidence at all that, in field conditions, BSE has got into the national flock, but as that possibility cannot be wholly excluded, we are proposing to take these precautionary measures. I am putting a copy of SEAC's advice and of my Department's consultation letter in the Library of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: It would make me a very happy Speaker if all statements were received in such silence. Thank you.

Dr. Gavin Strang: May I put it to the Minister that, in dealing with matters relating to BSE and a possible link with CJD, we always need to err on the side of caution? It is on that basis that we support the precautionary measures that he announced today. May I also make it clear that it is vital that the regulations are properly enforced? We must have no repeat of the dreadful underenforcement of the regulations to keep the BSE agent out of beef and beef products, in the early years after it was identified in 1986. Is the Minister now taking steps to reverse the cuts that successive Conservative Governments have made in the State Veterinary Service?
In view of the trade in lamb throughout Europe, it clearly makes sense that any measures of this nature should be implemented across all the member states of the European Union. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that a number of member Governments at the Council meeting on Monday opposed the proposals? In that case, is he confident that, whatever the Standing Veterinary Committee decides, we can look forward to their being enforced throughout the EU and as uniformly as possible?
The Minister advised the House that the heads of all sheep and goats are to be kept out of human food. I should be grateful if he set out further the scientific basis for keeping heads out of our food, particularly in the light of the fact that, in relation to cattle, we keep intestines, thymus, spleen and spinal cords out of human food, again on a precautionary basis.
The Minister confirmed that the whole basis for the measure is the possibility—many people would say the theoretical possibility—that BSE is in our national sheep


flock. I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to carry out research to see whether he can find any evidence of BSE in our sheep. Has he noticed today's statement by the president of the Royal Society, that there is an urgent need for more research into the subject in order to reduce some of the uncertainties?
We need to attach the highest priority to the health of our livestock, and it should be our policy to eliminate transmissible spongiform encephalopathies from our cattle and sheep.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I entirely agree with his assertion that it is right to act in a precautionary manner. I can confirm that when the regulations are put in place, they will be rigorously enforced, and I am confident that we have sufficient resources to do so. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Meat Hygiene Service has been recruiting substantially in order to discharge its existing duties with regard to BSE. It is true that there are some reservations in member states, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is desirable to approach the matter in an EU-wide way. I anticipate that any legally binding directives or decisions will be implemented throughout the European Union.
On the issue of brains and heads, the recommendation in SEAC's report extends only to brains. It does not extend to the spinal cord, although it is perfectly true that there is a French recommendation that does, albeit with a 12-months start point. The European Union vets will be considering that recommendation. For my part, I shall be annexing the SEAC recommendations and its report to the consultation document so that everyone has access to the advice that we have received.
I can confirm that we shall be looking into research to establish whether there is any evidence of BSE in the national flock. At the moment, there is no such evidence. I can also confirm that the elimination of BSE from cattle is a very high priority objective of the British Government. I can confirm that it is highly desirable for us to work out a strategy for the elimination of scrapie from the national flock.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has demonstrated that in scientific laboratory conditions BSE can be transmitted to sheep. What possible evidence is there that that happens in the field, particularly in relation to sheep that are younger than eight years old and have never been able to eat any bovine beef?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right—there is no evidence that BSE has been transmitted to sheep in field conditions. We are acting out of an abundance of caution in a wholly precautionary way. But my hon. Friend was right to make his point.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We are grateful to the Minister for making an oral statement, particularly given the condition of his vocal cords. I think that he was originally intending to rely on a written answer and it is to the benefit of the House that he has made a statement and that we have had an opportunity to put questions to him.
The House will agree that there is an urgent need to clarify the position, so will the Minister tell us precisely what he has agreed to in relation to British lamb? Is it

not true that the precautionary measures are irrelevant to traditionally reared and traditionally butchered English—British—lamb? Is it not true that the English chop is safe in our time? Will he now give that assurance? Will he respond specifically to the point made by the British Veterinary Association, that the proposed regulations are ludicrous in relation to the British situation?

Mr. Hogg: It is true that I was thinking of relying on a written answer; an Adjournment debate was also planned and I was contemplating informing the House about the issues during that debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked what I have agreed to. I have agreed to nothing. I am in the process of consulting, in the manner that I have described to the House. Clearly, if the European Union promulgates EU-wide directives that are legally binding, I anticipate implementing them in this country—as I imagine that he would wish me to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the English chop. I am bound to say that I am not quite as partial as he is to it, in the sense that I am also concerned about the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh chop. Speaking of the UK chop, I think that it is a splendid product. It can be eaten in complete safety, and I look forward to doing so for very many years to come.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Perhaps the House has listened to this statement in such a quiet manner because, rather than suffering from July madness, we are suffering from crisis fatigue. Will my right hon. and learned Friend recall and reflect on the question so ably asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who got to the nub of the entire matter? Is it not a fact that we are leaving our common sense behind in responding to the Commission's proposals, which are totally unnecessary for our sheep industry?

Mr. Hogg: I have already made the point that we are acting out of an abundance of caution. It is our view that UK lamb—in fact, European lamb—is wholly safe. We have received advice. The French committee has advised the French Government, and SEAC, our advisory committee, has advised the British Government. Therefore, on the basis of that considered opinion—which will be made available to all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend—it is right to proceed in the manner that I have outlined to the House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: This is another fine mess that the Agriculture Minister has got himself into—or that he has got the industry into. Surely he is aware that consumers do not trust him. Furthermore, he must be aware that he is driving producers to despair, particularly those who have to sell their lamb flock at this time of year, when the lambs are ready for market. Given that he has not only lost his voice, but lost the place, has not the time come for him to hand over responsibility for these affairs to the Deputy Prime Minister—or, preferably, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)—before any more damage is done to consumer confidence or to the rural economy?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the position adopted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who was, quite rightly,


supporting the Government's position. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is in fact saying that we should override and disregard SEAC's advice. That is what he is saying, and I do not think that it is a sensible or a prudential way in which to operate.

Mr. Paul Marland: May I be forgiven for wondering where all this will end? I saw that, in some quarters this morning, the judgment of the Agriculture Commissioner was being called into question, because these precautions are being taken on the flimsiest of evidence. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is good news that this is a European rather than a British initiative, so that the onus is no longer on the British Government? Will he confirm that already 99 per cent. of the sheep brains removed in this country are destroyed, and that these measures will have virtually no effect whatever on the British sheep industry? That is quite a contrast to what happens in France, where a large proportion of sheep's brains are used in regional dishes.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is any truth in the rumour that is today circulating round the House, that these measures are a dastardly plot by Euro-vegetarians, who are determined to put off everyone from eating meat and to promote nut cutlets?

Mr. Hogg: I have no difficulty in forgiving my hon. Friend in this matter, or in almost any other matter in which he asks for forgiveness. I have not the faintest intention of embarking on a diet of nut cutlets, and certainly not if they were the only thing that I was permitted to eat.
It is entirely desirable that the policy should be deployed on an EU-wide basis. My hon. Friend is right about that. He is also entirely right about the impact on the United Kingdom, as almost without exception— I am talking about 99 per cent.— the brains from sheepmeat in the UK are destroyed.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister confirm that virtually every species that has been challenged with BSE in the way that the French team challenged sheep has developed a BSE-like disease? Will he therefore explain what will be done with the sheep's heads that are not now going into the food chain? Will they be rendered down into meat and bonemeal, and will that meat and bonemeal still be going into animal pet food as well as being disposed of in landfill sites?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will find that the latter point is dealt with at some length in the consultation document. It is perfectly true that BSE can be transmitted to many creatures. As for the brains, the head— leaving aside the tongue— will be removed and destroyed and will not go into pet food. It will be treated as the equivalent of specified bovine material.

Mr. John Green way: If we are to have these precautions, so be it— as my hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland) said, they will not make a scrap of difference to the preparation of lamb for British and European tables. What livestock farmers will find difficult to understand is that it appears that the Agriculture Commissioner says that if we remove the

brains and offal from lambs that theoretically might have BSE, lamb is safe. We have been doing that with British cattle for seven years, but we still have a ban on British beef. Why?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a formidable debating point, which I shall not overlook.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have many sheep farmers in my constituency who are very dependent on the export trade to Europe. Is not it in their best interests if we comply fully with the new European requirements, because we do not want trouble again with Europe on these matters in future?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when the European Standing Veterinary Committee considered beef, its decisions appeared not to be based purely on scientific evidence? Is he confident that when the committee meets again to consider these matters, it will consider them only on scientific and veterinary grounds?

Mr. Hogg: It is very important that it should, but it is fair to say that in matters of this kind there is scope for more than one reasonable judgment. There is a difference, which I have already pointed out to the House, between the advice of SEAC, which confines the recommendation to brains from sheep of more than six months, and that of the French advisory committee, which talks of enlarging the prohibition to include the spinal cord and spleen, albeit only in respect of sheep over the age of 12 months. There is that perfectly understandable difference of opinion among scientists, which needs to be reconciled on objective scientific criteria within the EU's advisory committees.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that Welsh lamb is one of the great export success stories of recent years and that it is a quality product much sought after in France, Italy and Spain? Does he recognise that the statement by the Commissioner this time was distinctly unhelpful, bearing in mind the fact that many lambs are now coming on to our markets? Will he reinforce to his European counterparts the fact that the Commissioner's words must not in any way be used as a pretext to prevent our lambs going on to those markets?

Mr. Hogg: I recognise the importance of the export of Welsh lamb. I also recognise that it is a quality product. It is important that we do not allow any action to be taken to discriminate against United Kingdom products in any respect. I should make the point that we are dealing with very young lambs. The majority of the exports from Wales are substantially under 12 months and that, for example, would mean that if we were to accept the French recommendations, there would be no prohibition of any kind.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the price of lamb at Hexham auction mart yesterday fell by more than 20 per cent., which is bad news for farmers, who are already suffering a 30 per cent. drop in income because of the BSE crisis


in beef? Will he ensure that nothing is done to discriminate against English lamb in France by the French Government making regulations which would increase the processing costs of United Kingdom carcases, but which would not apply to carcases of French-bred lamb?

Mr. Hogg: I was aware of the fall in price to which my hon. Friend refers. When the consumer reflects on what has been said in the House and elsewhere, we shall find that consumer confidence bounces back and the price will be restored to its former levels. My hon. Friend is quite right in what he says about discrimination. I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter in some detail with Philippe Vasseur, the French Agriculture Minister, and I do not believe that there will be any such discrimination. [Interruption.]

Mr. Andrew Faulds: These boys. Has it been established what proportion of British sheep may have had access to dubious bovine feed?

Mr. Hogg: That information is set out in the consultation document. A detailed reply would take several minutes. The information is also in the SEAC report. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be able to find the precise answer to his question by reading the consultation document and the SEAC report.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to prove that there is any food that does not have some risk? Are we not in danger of a national epidemic of paranoia, which is far more damaging to the health of the nation— a nation that still has many smokers? Can we not put the whole matter in perspective during the quiet days of August?

Mr. Hogg: That is good advice.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Minister recall promising during the evidence-taking sessions of the joint Health and Agriculture Committees that MAFF would co-operate with Dr. Harash Narang by supplying him with urine samples? A fortnight ago, at a meeting in the House of relatives of CJD sufferers, Dr. Narang said that he had not yet received those urine samples. Will the Minister tell us why not? Surely it is in everyone's best interests to have a live test validated.

Mr. Hogg: It is, of course, desirable that we should identify and develop an effective live test. We are perfectly willing to work with Dr. Narang, but co-operation has to be a two-way process.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Has my right hon. and learned Friend's Department learnt nothing from previous health scares? Does he not recognise that saying that a product is safe while at the same time introducing precautionary measures sends a confused and confusing message, which does nothing to maintain or restore public confidence?

Mr. Hogg: But if I could turn that question on its head, is my hon. Friend recommending that I disregard a positive recommendation from SEAC?

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Could we return to the science of the matter? When Professor Pattison of SEAC

and Dr. Will of the neuropathogens unit at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh addressed the parliamentary and scientific committee some three weeks ago, they gave the impression that the French work had not been made available to them. In the past three weeks, have our scientists looked at the basis on which the French results were achieved, and what is the state of co-operation among scientists?

Mr. Hogg: The co-operation has been very good. At a recent meeting of SEAC, a number of French scientists from the Dormont committee were present, and I believe that at one of the recent meetings of the Dormont committee, members of SEAC were present. I have also had a recent meeting with the French Agriculture Minister to discuss this very subject.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the great British public are getting pretty fed up with all the scare stories affecting their staple food of one sort or another? Is he further aware that one of the largest abattoirs in the country is in my constituency? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and other hon. Members have said, abattoirs are affected by such scare stories. Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to assure people today that lamb is as safe as it has ever been, so that we can enjoy our summer holidays in peace and quiet and ensure that butchers, abattoirs, retailers and anyone else involved in the industry can sleep easy at night?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has stated the position with complete accuracy. In my view, UK lamb and, indeed, European lamb is wholly safe. What is being done is done out of an abundance of caution, based on assessments of theoretical risk. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that BSE is in the national flock, either here or elsewhere in Europe.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Minister aware that the opinion is going around in my constituency that his mere appearance on television is enough to undermine confidence in whichever product he is proclaiming to be safe? Will he confirm whether it is correct that there are about 170,000 cases of BSE in beef herds, so the Government have taken some precautions— belatedly and poorly enforced, but now in place— and that, although there is no evidence whatever of any BSE infection in the sheep flock, we are taking similar precautions for sheep? In the absence of such evidence, does not such action strike the Minister as somewhat drastic? Have we not reached an incredible state of affairs when Professor Richard Lacey is accusing the Ministry and the European Commission of alarmism?

Mr. Hogg: I do not know what impact I may have on the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I know of the impact that he has on mine. He is against the integrity of the United Kingdom, which causes immense dismay in most of England and Wales, and I fancy in Scotland as well.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I encourage the Minister to look on the bright side? There is one. First, thousands of sheep and cattle are happily munching grass instead of heading towards the abattoir or the dinner plate.

Mr. Home Robertson: They are going to incinerators.

Mr. Banks: Not all of them, yet.
Secondly, thousands of people are becoming vegetarians because they do not want their brains to turn to jelly, and that must be good for the health of the nation. Thirdly, the House has watched the interesting spectacle of the Minister becoming the first hog to make a pig's ear out of himself.

Mr. Hogg: It is obviously for the hon. Gentleman to determine whether he is a vegetarian, but the consequence of what he has just said would be disastrous for British farmers and everybody working in the related industries.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that I represent a large number of producers as well as consumers, and although I agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that it is right to err on the side of caution, it is also important not to cause panic? Will he or one of his Ministers have a quick word with the Consumers Association, to ensure that it does not make the same kind of foolish statement that it made over the beef crisis?

Mr. Hogg: It is always nice to have the hon. Gentleman's support. He had better have some cautionary words with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because his constituents would be damaged by his hon. Friend's policies. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has the matter concerning the Consumers Association in hand.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that the key lesson to learn from the BSE crisis is the need to engage and hold consumer confidence? Does he understand that many people view his Ministry as an agent of the producer rather than of the consumer? Is there not a case for an independent food advisory committee?

Mr. Hogg: Of course, it is important to try to engage and retain the confidence of the consumer— that is central. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. It is perfectly true that the Ministry of Agriculture has always had a high regard for the interests of the producer, and rightly so. But our paramount obligation and duty is not to the producer: it is to the consumer. My Department's overriding obligation is to ensure the safety and quality of British food.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister assure the House that the Department's secret priority is not the promotion of ostrich farming?

Mr. Hogg: That issue has never crossed my desk.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Scrapie in sheep was made a notifiable disease in 1992. Has the incidence of scrapie increased since then? Is there not a case, as the president of the Royal Society makes clear in his press statement today, for the Government to explore the possibility of a programme to eradicate scrapie in sheep?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, there is. We must clearly develop a strategy designed to achieve, in the medium to long term,

the eradication of scrapie from the national flock. Meanwhile, we need to determine whether our existing scrapie controls and regulations are adequate. I propose to direct that that be done. We also need to carry out research to determine, as best we can, the present incidence of scrapie in the national flock.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Is the Minister aware that I spent several hours over the Whit weekend assisting a farmer because the Intervention Board's telephone service was unmanned for the whole holiday period? Given the Government's failure to respond to inquiries that I have initiated, will the Minister assure the House that every possible support will be given to farmers with inquiries about his statement— over the telephone and by other means— during the coming holiday period? Will he also use such services as a way of collecting data from farmers, to assist with the important research that is necessary?

Mr. Hogg: We have greatly improved the communication policies that we have been pursuing. It is important to do our utmost to keep the producers informed. We have established helplines; we have been writing direct to farmers. We have been issuing newsletters and publishing advertisements in the farming press. We shall certainly see how we can reinforce that approach.

Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. May I emphasise to him the massive size of the Welsh flock? Were anything like what has happened to beef to happen to sheepmeat in Wales, our rural communities would face ruin.
Where are Welsh Office Ministers today? What discussions has the Minister had with them to safeguard our industry?

Mr. Hogg: My understanding is that the relevant Welsh Office Minister is at the Welsh show, which is where I expect the hon. Gentleman would want him to be.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Minister accept that many sheep producers in constituencies such as mine work in the most marginal agricultural areas and are already right up to the wire, financially speaking— not least because of the erosion of Government support for those areas, particularly in the form of hill livestock compensatory allowances? If they are to suffer losses from a slump in market confidence, will the Minister reassure us that, in so far as it is within the power of the Government to do so, they will adjust the various forms of agricultural support so that, for once, hill farmers in marginal areas will be given a decent deal?

Mr. Hogg: The truth is that all these things depend on consumer confidence. My own clear feeling is that there is absolutely no reason why consumers' confidence in lamb should be damaged by what has been said here today or at the Agriculture Council.

Point of Order

Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House:
No one can buy access to Ministers."— [Official Report, 23 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 144.]
Yet the introduction to a leaflet from the Conservative party's Premier club states:
The Premier Club is also a forum for leading businessmen to meet and interact, and to forge closer relationships with senior Conservative politicians.
Those senior politicians are, of course, Ministers. Do you believe that that issue ought to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, so that we can prevent Ministers from touting themselves around for money in that way?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Lady feels that that is a matter for the Commissioner, she must refer it. I remind the House that we will have a debate later today on the code of conduct, during which that matter may arise.

BILL PRESENTED

REGULATION OF THE WHEELCLAMPING INDUSTRY

Mrs. Diana Maddock, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Matthew Taylor, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of private wheelclamp operators by local authorities and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 16 October and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate and promote the flying of the Union Flag; to enable Government construction projects to be identified with the Union Flag; and to promote the union of the United Kingdom.
Sunday was a gorgeous day, and I sat in my garden in Lichfield reading The Sunday Times, as my favourite newspapers The Guardian and The Times were not available that day. I started looking through the newspaper's magazine, where I saw an interesting piece called "Britain's feel-bad factor".
The article stated that The Sunday Times had commissioned an NOP poll for the magazine, which showed that
people are either unaware of, or unwilling to believe in, Britain's achievements.
The article stated:
Measured in terms of gross domestic product, Britain vies for fifth place … in the world rankings. But most people think that Britain's economy is far less important … Only 22 per cent. correctly plumped for the fifth biggest.
The article continued:
Only 27 per cent. think Britain has a lower unemployment rate than Germany, France and Sweden … But unemployment in Britain is only 7.7 per cent. of the workforce, compared with 9 per cent. in Germany, 9.3 per cent. in Sweden and 12.3 per cent. in France.
On taxes, the article stated:
46 per cent. think they are higher in Britain than in other industrial countries … Overall, taxes in Britain are 38 per cent. of GDP, compared with an average of 45 per cent. in the EU.
Only in two areas was there a little optimism.
By more than two to one … people believe British television to be the best in the world. Given the choice between identically priced British, German and Japanese goods, 72 per cent. said they would choose the domestic product.
The article, written by David Smith—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Much against my better judgment, I have been listening to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), and not once has he mentioned the subject of his Bill— the Union flag. All he has said is totally irrelevant to the Bill that he is purporting to introduce.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member's introduction has been quite long, but he may now be coming to the flag. Is that right?

Mr. Fabricant: Precisely

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wearing the right colours today.

Mr. Fabricant: The point is that the final sentence of the article states:
Underneath that inferiority complex, there may just be a sense of national pride waiting to burst out.
Madam Speaker, that is the whole point of my Bill.
Thanks to Gordon on the Opposition Front Bench, we have become a nation of gloom— new Labour, new glums. I want to bring a little colour back to the United Kingdom. I want to fly the red, white and blue. About 3 million Britons go to America every year, and they see the stars and stripes flying in petrol station forecourts, outside people's homes, outside schools and on public buildings. But we do not see our flag flying here.
Why is that? First, it is due to planning permission, and my Bill will seek to change planning permission measures. To fly a flag, one needs a flagpole, and— astonishingly enough— one needs planning permission for that. My Bill will seek to ensure that— providing it is to fly the British flag— planning permission will not be necessary for a flagpole.
Secondly, during my researches, I found that, amazingly, Government buildings are allowed to fly the flag on only 20 days in a year, and on extra special days as specified by the Queen through the Lord Chamberlain. My Bill would allow— nay, would encourage— Government buildings to fly it 365 days a year. I would like it to be flown in schools, outside petrol forecourts, in people's front gardens and in offices. We should be proud of the Union.
I have had letters of encouragement from people from all parts of the country. Mr. Egerton, of Dinas Powys in the Vale of Glamorgan, wrote:
I fly the union flag (a small one) on the apex of my greenhouse— and regularly receive appreciative remarks.
Roger Percival, of the Pheasant hotel in Kelling, Norfolk, writes:
I urged the British Tourist Authority/English Tourist Board to encourage all members to fly the Union Flag.
Christopher Buswell of Alton in Hampshire says:
Could not the British be encouraged to erect flagpoles at their homes and fly the Union flag thus instilling a sense of national pride in their country once again?
Mrs. Woolley, of Cardiff, South Glamorgan, writes:
I have just returned from a holiday in the West and to see the flags of Canada and America so proudly displayed in almost every garden and on public buildings made me ashamed for the way in which we are fettered by planning restrictions and days for flying the flag.
I could go on— [Interruption.]— and I will, as Opposition Members implore me to. Mr. Edward Johnson, from Falmouth in Cornwall, writes:
I personally feel that the history of our flag and its presence, should be compulsory at every school in Britain.
We have every right to be proud of the flag. I would also like Government construction projects to fly the British flag, just as European Union projects in the United Kingdom show the European flag.
This Bill is not only about patriotism; it is about taking the flag away from the National Front and the fascists, who more or less possessed it in the 1960s and 1970s. The Bill gives the flag back to the people. The greatest threat it faces comes not from anyone who might be unpatriotic enough to oppose it today, but from a Labour Government.
Madam Speaker, I can see you asking me why that should be so. It is Labour policy to promote devolution. Devolution would light the long fuse that would

inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK. That would be damaging, because, great as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are, they are made all the greater because we are one nation— the United Kingdom. That would be threatened by a Labour Government.
A Labour Government would give up all our powers of veto in Europe. The Union flag would become the white flag of surrender. For that reason, the Bill not only promotes a flag to be flown from a flagpole, but is a reminder to everyone that the Conservative party and the Government stand for the great union that is the Union of the United Kingdom.
The greatest son of Lichfield is Samuel Johnson, who said:
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
At the risk of deselection, I shall disagree with him and say that there is nothing wrong with patriotism, which is devotion to one's country. Nationalism may be different. The Union Rag Bill promotes the Union and the flying of the flag. I hope that all patriots in the Chamber today will support it

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not support the Bill, but I like the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)— how could anyone dislike him? It is not the Labour party that is a threat to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, if he gets permission for it, but time and sanity. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which is a humble but worthy job. It is the first greasy mark on the political pole, and we would all agree that few have greased more assiduously, or carried a ministerial lunch box with more colour and verve, than the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
There is a certain guile about the hon. Gentleman that neutralises his propensity to kiss the bottom of any passing figure of authority. He is visibly bursting with pride at becoming a ministerial gofer, which makes me rather sad. I do not see a Minister manque sitting opposite but a poor, wretched youth congratulating himself on getting the last cabin boy's job on the Titanic.
For all the qualities of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire— and we all like him— his proposal is silly, as one would expect from its originator. It is silly in concept and timing. After all, the hon. Gentleman only has the overspill of a few days in October to present his Bill, if he gets permission. The chances of the Bill ever getting to the statute book are about as good as my chances of entering the kingdom of heaven.

Mr. Foulkes: Or the shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Banks: Yes, or the shadow Cabinet— which I have been assured by the Leader of the Opposition is one and the same place. If it is the same place, I have a good idea what God looks like.
The suggestion to fly more flags comes straight out of Evelyn Waugh, and so does the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire. Wrapping the Union flag around bankrupt policies or unfavourable Government opinion polls is typical of the Conservative party. It does that all the time, to cover its bankruptcy. Every time Opposition Members criticise the Government about their economic


performance, or whatever, they say that we are being unpatriotic and talking Britain down. The Government are running Britain down, when all we are doing is telling the truth.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire mentioned the great Samuel Johnson. Apart from Lichfield, I can think of one other similarity between Dr. Johnson and the hon. Gentleman, but kindness prevents me from saying precisely what it is.
Waving more flags is a pathetic response, but one expects that from a pathetic Government. It is obscene to use the flag as a way of suggesting that criticism of a policy or Government is tantamount to treason, and divides the country rather than unites it. The hon. Member said that the Union flag should be flown over Government construction projects. I would like him to name a few. There are plenty of flags flying over British manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, they tend to be the national flags of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Germany.
The hon. Gentleman is also using his Bill as a way of getting at devolution. There is much talk in the House about subsidiarity. Devolution is subsidiarity— national subsidiarity. A flag should be a symbol of national unity, not used to paper over injustices and divisions that should be addressed. I often visit the United States, and it is true that one sees that country's flag everywhere. America is more united in that respect, because so many powers have been devolved to individual states, which also have their own flags.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is a silly proposal, but at least Mr. Simon Hoggart now has some more cheap copy for tomorrow, in his love-hate relationship with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.

Union Flag

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.— [Mr. McLaughlin.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

WILD ANIMALS: TRAPPING METHODS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4198/96, relating to methods of trapping wild animals; shares the Government's concern that the Commission's proposals represent a significant weakening of the existing Council regulation agreed unanimously in 1991; and supports the Government's view that the Community must make it clear to fur-exporting countries through Community legislation that it maintains a strong commitment to end the use of leghold traps worldwide.— [Mr. McLaughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

FISHERIES

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7833/96, relating to management guidelines for the fourth generation of Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes, 7827/96 on restructuring the Community fisheries sector, and 7701/96, relating to the establishment of a satellite-based vessel monitoring system; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th July 1996 laying down technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources; on 6th July 1996 on a fisheries agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania; on 8th July 1996 on a fisheries agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Angola; on 8th July 1996 on a fisheries agreement between the European Community and Sao Tome e Principe; and on 9th July 1996 on progress of the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme for the fishing fleet at the end of 1995; and supports the Government's resolve to achieve improvements in the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular in relation to the conservation and rational exploitation of the resources on which United Kingdom fishermen depend, and the Government's commitment to seeking Treaty changes at the Inter-Governmental Conference in order to address the issue of quota hopping.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question, to add—
'and calls on Her Majesty's Government to recognise and draw to the attention of other Member States of the European Community that the genesis and evolution of the current Common Fisheries Policy is flawed by past misrepresentation, coercion by qualified majority vote, inequity between Member States, and impracticality in operation, and is thus incapable of achieving the objectives of conservation of fisheries and the marine environment that can yield sustainable catches and consequent stability of income and employment in fishing communities: and thus believes that these objectives can only be achieved by a new policy created and sustained by mutual agreement between those Member States possessing internationally recognised fishery interests working in co-operation to achieve these universally desirable ends.'.— [Mr. Spearing.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees):—

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 164.

Division No. 211]
[4.27 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Beith, A J
Madden, Max


Bennett, Andrew F
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Molyneaux, Sir James


Campbell-Savours, D N
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chidgey, David
Rendel, David


Cohen, Harry
Salmond, Alex


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Spearing, Nigel



Steel, Sir David


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gill, Christopher
Wigley, Dafydd


Hardy, Peter



Hawksley, Warren
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Harry Barnes and Dr. Norman A. Godman.


Lynne, Ms Liz





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Bates, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson, Sir Rhodes






Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burns, Simon
Gummer, John


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Sir Terence


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Sir John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, Sir David





Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Newton, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Waldegrave, William


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Walden, George


Pawsey James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Rathbone, Tim
Ward, John


Rifkind Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Roberts, sir wyn
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Willetts, David


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Gillian
Young, Sir George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)



Shersby, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Sir Roger
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to

Point of Order

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published a Fisheries Review Group document. I found two reference copies of it in the Library, but no copies for hon. Members in the Vote Office. The document is substantial, and does not easily photocopy.
It is infuriating for hon. Members with fishing constituencies, who have been waiting for this document for many months, to find that it has been published on the last day of the Session and in a manner that makes it extremely inconvenient and difficult to consult. As MAFF Ministers are on the Front Bench, may I use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask whether they are prepared to extend some common courtesy to hon. Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I
shall cause inquiries to be made. I have no prior knowledge of the matter.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL INSPECTIONS BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Morris: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just say one word?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am
sorry, but no debate is possible under the Standing Order arrangements.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Accelerated Slaughter Programme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This will be a short debate, and I know that many hon. Members have points that they wish to make. Therefore, I shall keep my remarks brief, and focus on the issues of most immediate importance.
I shall deal first with the selective cull. As hon. Members know, the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured at the Florence Council provides the framework for the step-by-step lifting of the European Union ban on exports of United Kingdom beef and beef products. Decisions on each step will be taken on the basis of scientific and objective criteria. The agreement was a great success, and provides a solid way forward. The framework also provides for the introduction by the United Kingdom of a programme for accelerating the decline of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
As I have stated frequently, the Government are committed to a policy of eradicating BSE— it is a high policy objective. We are pursuing that objective successfully. I am glad to report that the number of confirmed cases is in sharp decline. To date, there have been about 160,000 confirmed cases. The peak was in 1992, when we had about 36,500 confirmed cases. By 1995, that had fallen to about 14,000 confirmed cases. This year, leaving aside any question of a cull, we expect about 8,000 confirmed cases. That figure will fall to about 2,800 confirmed cases by 1998. As the House will see, we are steadily eradicating BSE from our national herd.
On 3 July, we issued a consultation document on our selective slaughter programme which is designed to increase the rate of decline still further. The aim of the programme is to identify, slaughter and destroy those animals that, on objective grounds, can reasonably be regarded as most likely to have been exposed to the risk of infection, and thus to develop BSE.
There has been much talk— in the House and elsewhere— about the cull of hundreds of thousands of animals and about whole-herd slaughter. Neither is true. The programme will be carefully targeted, focusing on certain individual animals born in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. As hon. Members know, for animals born in 1989–90, the slaughter will be voluntary.
There have been many responses to our consultation document. In addition, my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Agriculture, with Ministers in other Agriculture Departments, have held many meetings with farmers throughout the country to hear local views at first hand. Many views have been expressed to us on such details as what we mean by a cohort, the definition of a herd and the right to make representations against the requirement to slaughter.
All those responses are still being considered. I am determined that our final conclusions should reflect as many of the concerns as possible. It is our intention that, in carrying out this policy— which I recognise is a difficult one for many people— we should be as sensitive as we can to the individual problems of every farm.
In this respect, I should say that I am especially aware of the anxieties of dairy farmers about the possible implications for milk quota management. I am pleased to announce that, last night, I was able to secure an important concession from Commissioner Fischler at the Agriculture Council. Subject to certain conditions, United Kingdom farmers who are affected by our programme will be able to lease out surplus milk quota after the end of the calendar year. That should provide welcome flexibility for those concerned.
Taking into account all the relevant considerations, I have concluded that, although it is right that the House should now have the opportunity to debate the programme, it would not be right for me to sign the orders. I did, however, think that it would help hon. Members if they could read copies of the present drafts of the orders, which are now available in the Vote Office. Before signing them, Ministers will take into account the responses to our consultation paper, the views expressed in the House, and any other relevant material.

Sir Donald Thompson: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend made a long statement earlier and that he is discussing the important matter of mass slaughter, but, before we get to that mass slaughter, we must deal with the fact that all sorts of farmers throughout this country are facing delays in getting their cattle slaughtered in ones and twos.
They seem to hint that, were they to deal with dealers rather than directly with slaughterhouses, there would be some accelerated progress. My right hon. and learned Friend will have read that I have said the same thing in the House before. Will he encourage his civil servants and his Ministers to ensure that we get the tidying-up process before we enter into the great programme that he is proposing?

Mr. Hogg: I am conscious of the concerns that have been expressed— for example, by my hon. Friend. I am glad that the slaughter policy under the 30-month rule is proceeding effectively— in many ways, thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We have slaughtered around 280,000 beasts thus far under the 30-month rule. It is difficult to be wholly certain when we will eliminate the backlog, but I hope that that will happen around the middle of October. I certainly understand that it would be desirable either to complete, or at least nearly to complete, the backlog before embarking on the selective cull.

Mr. George Foulkes: As the Minister rightly says, the accelerated slaughter scheme is not welcomed by the producers, who are entering into it reluctantly— it is causing them stress and disturbance. Beef producers in Scotland have made it clear to me that they are willing to go along with the scheme, albeit reluctantly, on the clear understanding that the beef ban will be lifted. The Minister has constantly said that the framework is there for lifting the ban.
I have looked carefully, but I cannot find any guarantee or clear indication that the ban will be lifted if we go ahead with the scheme. Will the Minister spell out how it was made clear in the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers that, if the scheme goes ahead, the ban will be lifted?

Mr. Hogg: The framework agreement works as follows: the British Government must fulfil certain obligations, most notably, putting in place the legislation on the selective cull, but also putting in place the requirements regarding the recall of feed and measures involving the identification and traceability of beasts. I shall come to those points later.
When we believe that we have concluded that process, we shall present the Commission with a paper setting out what we have done. The Commission will doubtless wish to verify that we have done that which we have said we have done. We shall then look to the Commission to bring forward proposals for the step-by-step lifting of the ban. The framework identifies a number of steps that we think should be taken before the ban is entirely lifted. I think that the first steps that are likely to be taken involve certified herds— a point that I shall touch on.
For those purposes, the most important thing in the framework agreement, which has been signed up to by all the Heads of State, is a recognition that the Commission and its various instruments, such as the Standing Veterinary Committee, should proceed on scientific and objective criteria, not with regard to any other considerations, as some people might feel that they have hitherto done.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would this be an appropriate time to ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be saying something about the position of cattle that have been sold under the age of 30 months where there has been a substantial loss on the transaction? Is my right hon. and learned Friend attracted to the proposition that the £ 29.6 million provided by Europe should be applied entirely to help that sector? Can he say something about whether there might be matching funding to provide genuine compensation for the difference in respect of market values?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but perhaps he will forgive me if I respond to it in the course of my speech, as I have something specific to say on it.

Mr. Paul Marland: On the subject of clearing the backlog, there has been some discussion about bringing into play some cold storage, so that animals that have been slaughtered can be stored in a cold store until the rendering capacity is available to treat the carcases. What is the current position on that?

Mr. Hogg: We have plans to bring on stream additional cold storage facilities. It is that fact which, at least in part, enables me to say that I hope that we shall clear the backlog by around the middle of October. It is important to have additional storage capacity, because we must render some parts of all beasts that are killed under the slaughter scheme.
I have already told the House— I hope that it is helpful to hon. Members— that copies of the draft orders are in the Vote Office. There are some further points that I think hon. Members would like to know. Ministers are likely to sign the relevant orders during the next few weeks— that is not absolutely certain, but likely. That would allow us to start the process of tracing animals in the way set out in the consultation paper and, where appropriate, to apply restriction orders.
There are also a number of questions to which the farming community is anxious to have answers— most notably, compensation. The Government have recognised the need for fair compensation, going beyond our practice for disease control measures.
There will not always be a ready market in the older animals that are slaughtered. Consequently, farmers will have to go out and replace an animal that is slaughtered with a younger animal, which is likely to be more expensive. We have also to take into account taxpayers' interests, however, and it would not be right for farmers to benefit by improving the quality of their herds at taxpayers' expense. Thus, we must strike a balance.
We have decided that, in the case of female animals, we will pay compensation at a value of 90 per cent. of the cost of a younger animal— in other words, 90 per cent. of replacement value— or market value, whichever is higher.
We have also recognised the need for additional compensation for farmers whose herds are most affected. Hon. Members will see our detailed proposals on this matter in paragraph 13 of the consultation document.
I recognise also that, within the farming community, there is grave anxiety about the prospect of a compulsory slaughter of healthy animals. Therefore, I repeat the assurance that I gave the House on 18 July: there will be no compulsory slaughter under this scheme unless the House has had an opportunity to debate the relevant order.
That assurance is subject to one qualification. Separate legislation applies in Northern Ireland, and farming organisations there strongly favour an early cull. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may proceed with slaughter in Northern Ireland in advance of any debate in the autumn. However, we will not proceed to a compulsory slaughter in Great Britain on that basis.

Sir Colin Shepherd: My right hon. and learned Friend has set out the Government's position as stated in the consultation document. As he will be aware, both the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union took issue with increased compensation for farmers whose herds have been more affected. I should be grateful if he would amplify on that matter, rather than making his rather bald statement about securing a balance. Why does he feel that that balance is correct?

Mr. Hogg: There are two elements in the compensation. First, there is compensation for the beef itself. On that, I reiterate what I have said already: compensation for female animals will reflect 90 per cent. of replacement value or market value, whichever is highest. The justification for a 90 per cent. rather than a 100 per cent. replacement value is that, inevitably, farmers will replace an older beast— as, by definition, it will be— with a younger beast. There is a degree of betterment to that.
It is perfectly fair for my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) to say, "This obligation has been cast on the farmer by the Government." However, we have tried to deal with the concerns both of taxpayers and of the farming community, by saying that 90 per cent. of replacement value or market value, whichever is highest, will take account of the balance that must be struck.
The second element in the compensation relates to the disruption that is caused. When one takes out cattle from a herd, one inevitably disrupts a farmer's business. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford will see, in paragraph 13 of the consultation paper, the measures by which we deal with that matter. In very broad terms, they are as follows. If 10 per cent. of a herd is culled, there will be a 10 per cent. supplement on the value of an individual beast. The supplement will increase in a linear progression, so that there will be a 25 per cent. supplement if 40 per cent. of a herd is culled. I should say that the supplement is subject to a cap, which is explained in paragraph 13 of the consultation document.
It might be helpful if I give the House some information on several related matters. Under the over-30-month scheme, we have now slaughtered rather more than 270,000 beasts, and we are, as I have said, on course for clearing the backlog by mid-October. We would wish to complete, or nearly complete, this process before embarking on the mandatory selective cull.
I attach considerable importance to making speedy progress on our schemes for herds, or animals, which can properly be said never to have been exposed to the risk of developing BSE.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I must make a little progress; I shall then certainly give way to my hon. Friend.
We are making excellent progress on the concept of the certified herd. We have discussed the scheme with the Commission, which has raised no objections. We hope to start the process of certifying herds by mid-August. This will provide an exception to the 30-month rule so far as the UK domestic market is concerned, and I would hope to be able to press for an early relaxation of the ban on beef exports in respect of the certified herds.

Mr. Jackson: I greatly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the passporting scheme. Does he agree that it must be a high priority, as it is the key to providing a watertight guarantee to consumers at home, in Europe and elsewhere?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Easy identification of animals and their traceability are key elements in restoring the confidence of consumers and our EU partners. The UK has in fact for a number of years had a system which identifies each animal individually, and enables us to trace it back to its herd of origin, but we are improving and reinforcing that system.
Every bovine animal born in Great Britain after 1 July has to have a cattle passport recording all its movements. We are moving as rapidly as we can to a fully computer-based movement recording system. These are the types of development that my hon. Friend would urge on us.

Mr. Nick Ainger: The Minister is talking about clearing the backlog by mid-October. A number of my constituents— farmers and cattle dealers— have mentioned the fact that dealers are not considered as collection centres. Slaughterhouses are informing these dealers that they cannot take the beasts they have, or their customers' beasts— the farmers' beasts— because slaughterhouses have to take 75 per cent. of their throughput from collection centres.
Farmers are being told by auctioneers with whom they have never traded that they— the auctioneers— must refuse to take their beasts into their collection centres. Will the Minister explain why he has stipulated that slaughterhouses must take 75 per cent. of their throughput from collection centres?

Mr. Hogg: It reflects the pattern of the previous trade, but we are trying to secure a higher throughput through the live marts in order to bring about a slight skew in the system. Some discussions are taking place, especially with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to try to ensure that live marts are getting a higher proportion of the clean cattle than is currently the case.
I deal now with the question of feed. As the House will know, our view is that ruminant protein in cattle rations is the historic, and by far the most important, cause of BSE. Acting on feed is therefore the key to eradicating BSE. I will not repeat again the various measures that we have taken since 1988 to control the feed given to UK farm animals. I would, however, remind the House of the steps that we are taking this month— at Government expense— to collect and dispose of any supplies of meat and bonemeal still on farms or in feedmills.
From 1 August, it will be an offence to possess such material. I assure the House that we shall be vigorous in our enforcement of this very important provision. The provisions now in place should prevent any risk of ruminants being fed cattle rations that contain any mammalian protein.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of information, what is the position on the continent in terms of animal feed? The general population has learned an awful lesson about the feeding of animal protein to cattle and sheep which are herbivores. Is that still the practice in other European countries?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right. The regimes of some countries on the mainland of Europe have been much less satisfactory as regards the use of mammalian protein being fed to farm animals than has been the case here for many years. However, controls have been tightened, and the Commissioner himself intends to make new proposals in that regard. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is important that the requirement is EU-wide in its application.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked about support. We have introduced a range of measures to safeguard the future of the key links in the chain. My hon. Friend will remember that the Agriculture Council in June agreed a range of EU assistance worth about £ 110 million for beef farmers. Of that, about £ 29 million, or 34 mecu, was available as a discretionary spend. I am announcing by written answer today how we propose to spend this.
In substance, we will be using the £ 29 million to pay a headage payment in respect of cattle sold for slaughter between 20 March and 30 June— provided, of course, that the necessary documents can be produced. We have thereby gone a long way towards meeting the wishes of the farming community and its representatives, so as to ensure that the money gets quickly into the pockets of those who have suffered most.
To make it plain, £ 29 million of the £ 110 million will be used as I have just described, and the balance will be loaded on to the premium. However, it is not our intention to introduce national aids.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I sympathise with the Minister's losing his voice. Although his announcement will be some consolation and help to producers who sold at a significant loss earlier this year, what can he say to those who produce suckler calves on the hills and who are contemplating the autumn calf sales with great anxiety, because they cannot afford the fodder to keep those animals throughout the winter months?

Mr. Hogg: The real honest answer is that consumer confidence has to be built up. The market price is the only way to bring about permanent financial assistance or resources to the sector of the farming community that we are debating. We do not have it in mind to introduce a further top-up scheme; nor are there currently any proposals for such a scheme.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I cannot give way. I must make progress.
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, essentially, the solution lies in the market. We need to ensure that market confidence is restored.
On many occasions since 20 March, the House has had an opportunity to discuss BSE and how we can best respond to the grave difficulties that we all face. It is for that reason— the fact that we have been here before— that I have not thought it necessary to go into overmuch detail, but have focused on those matters which are of most immediate concern.
In closing, I should like to pay tribute to the good sense and patience of the fanning community and of those who represent it. I have been deeply impressed by the courage and dignity with which those engaged in agriculture and in related industries have met these quite exceptional and most challenging of times. They have our support.
Indeed, I believe that only a Conservative Government would have had the will to commit such vast resources to the assistance of British agriculture. We have thereby given powerful and conclusive evidence of the importance that we attach to this vital sector of the British economy.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, will he give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I rather thought that the Minister had already sat down.

Mr. Hogg: I was making my final observation, and I give way to my hon. Friend

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and learned Friend is most kind. I know that he mentioned the cold storage scheme, but unfortunately I had to attend to an urgent matter outside.
Let me briefly draw to his attention a point about the north-west and Lancaster in particular. Although it is a small market, there is a great backlog of 2,700 cattle awaiting slaughter. That figure will increase dramatically in the autumn, and there could well be animal welfare problems. That makes it so important that an adequate cold storage scheme is provided in the north-west. I should say to my right hon. Friend that there is a belief—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but interventions should be brief, and this is an one-and-a-half-hour debate.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs has been to Preston to discuss exactly the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Our objective is to ensure that the 30-month scheme operates as effectively as possible. There are rather more than 40 abattoirs operating in England and Wales.
It is important to match abattoirs to Tenderers to make the scheme as effective as possible, but the cold storage facilities are also important, and I hope that bringing together all the additional facilities will enable us to clear the backlog by about the middle of October. Meanwhile, I shall certainly take account of the point that my hon. Friend has just raised.

Dr. Gavin Strang: It seems appropriate that we should debate BSE on the day that the House rises. The matter has rightly preoccupied hon. Members for many months, and it has been the subject of several debates.
The House will be all too aware of the Government's appalling record on BSE since the disease was officially identified in 1986. It is a record of delay in regulating to protect human and animal health from the BSE agent and of dreadful under-enforcement of those regulations.
By May 1989, the Labour party had realised that it was vital to ban cattle offal from human food, to compensate farmers fully for slaughtered BSE cattle, and to ban the export of meat and bonemeal for cattle feed. Six years ago, in 1990, we called for a tagging system for all calves to be introduced in Great Britain. We knew that traceability would be the key to tackling the problem. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark) are on record calling for action, much of which was belatedly taken by the Government.
Had the Conservative Government listened to Labour, the difficulties faced by the beef industry now would be on a far smaller scale.
There is now great resentment— and a lack of confidence among consumers and the beef industry— at the Government's handling of the crisis that followed the statements made on 20 March that BSE was the most likely explanation for an apparently new strain of CJD.
The House will remember that on that day the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated:
I do not believe that this information should damage consumer confidence and thus the beef market."— [Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 387.]
The Government had no strategy to cope with the crisis, and our rural areas are paying a heavy price for that misjudgment.
As bits of policy have emerged since the statements of 20 March, they have been dogged by chaos and confusion. Nowhere was that more apparent— nothing had more impact on the industry— than in the introduction of the 30-month slaughter scheme. Only last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted on radio that there were still problems with the scheme. At least one Conservative Member has drawn attention to the aspects of the implementation of the scheme that are a matter of great concern to the industry.
There is continued dissatisfaction with the selection of abattoirs involved in the scheme, and in my view it is certainly time to review the level of payments made to slaughterhouses participating in the scheme. There is a general feeling in the industry that the rate paid for slaughtering an animal under the 30-month scheme is exceptionally and unjustifiably high.
On 16 April, the Minister promised that there would be exceptions to the 30-month rule for those herds— especially organic and specialist herds— with no risk of BSE. No such scheme is yet in operation. The Minister addressed the selective slaughter scheme, which is the main item before the House today.

Mr. Marland: We have heard this before from the hon. Gentleman. Before he leaves the section of his speech in which he criticises what is happening in the slaughterhouses, will he tell the House what his party proposes and how Labour would sort out the problem? It is not good enough for him to echo the Irishman and say, "I would not start from here if I were trying to find a way forward." It would be interesting to hear what the Labour party would do.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is tremendous dissent in the slaughterhouse industry. We recognise that there is overcapacity and that it has created problems. There is a feeling in many of the slaughterhouses and abattoirs not involved in the scheme that those participating in the scheme are achieving high profits and that the scheme is giving them an unfair competitive advantage in a difficult market.
No matter how we embarked on the scheme— we should recall that the Government proposed the 30-month slaughter scheme, albeit in response to the views of the industry; it was not imposed by Europe— it was always going to be a huge logistical operation.

Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: No. Others are waiting to speak, including the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).

Mr. Marland: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Dr. Strang: I am encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House not to give way, so I shall move on fairly quickly.
It is obviously a matter of regret that the orders have not been signed, but hon. Members should have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The House will remember that, at first, the selective slaughter scheme was to involve 40,000 cattle. That was the figure that the Minister first mentioned to the House. It was then increased to 80,000. Now, up to 147,000 cattle will be killed under the scheme. After great difficulty, that was agreed with the other member states of the European Union. We are concerned that what we have in return is not adequate. We have no timetable, and no guarantee from our European counterparts of any future agreement on the proposed lifting of the overall ban on the export of our beef and beef products.
The Minister will be aware that there is great concern throughout the industry. Did he agree with the Prime Minister when he said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 4 July that the selective slaughter policy was necessary, "to ensure public health"? I doubt that that can really be the Government's position.
Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's assessment that, by October, we shall be ready for the lifting of the ban on certified herds, young animals and embryos, and that, by November, all the conditions should be met to allow all meat that can be sold in the United Kingdom to be exported?
I remind the House that the agreement that was reached with Europe obliged the Government to get the necessary legislation and administrative provisions into force by 1 August. We are clearly in no position to achieve that.
The farming industry is right to advise the Minister that the cost of replacing an animal slaughtered under the scheme will be greater than its market value. The Minister has provided us with information on compensation. It is fair to say that he has now reached an understanding with the industry in respect of the compensation being offered. There are some considerations as to how we calculate the size of the herd, but hon. Members will recognise that, if we are to implement such a scheme, there must be fair compensation. Indeed, it will be a traumatic time for many producers and dairies. Many of them will be unaware of what lies ahead. Such uncertainty is of great concern to the industry.
I would like to raise a number of points, but time is short. Many of us are repeatedly approached about incineration. What additional incineration facilities are being provided? A huge volume of meat and bonemeal, which is created by Tenderers after the animals are slaughtered, has to be incinerated. The operation is huge, and we need some assurance that the Government are pressing ahead with it because it causes great controversy in many parts of the country.
It is of deep regret— I make no apology for repeating it— that two thirds of BSE cases being reported are in cattle that were born after the ruminant feed ban was put in place. We know that that ban was not effective. I still believe that there is a very powerful argument for an investigation into whether we can identify the main sources of that contaminated ruminant protein. Where were the cases occurring? Where was the specified bovine offal not being properly kept out? Where were compounders— I think by accident— continuing to supply contaminated ruminant protein? To what extent was there cross-contamination through the use of the same equipment for pig and poultry meal?
I appreciate the Minister's advising the House on how the Government intend to allocate the special additional aid that the EU has given to individual countries. I welcome his decision in this area. There was a feeling in the industry that the Government would allocate it to the beef special premium scheme. It is obviously fairer that the money should go to producers who have lost most and been hit hardest— those who have been selling beef for consumption since the crisis broke on 20 March.
We have a long way to go on this issue. There is a great deal to be learnt, but I am sure that hon. Members share the objective that we must support the industry and all its ancillary aspects as best we can. Of course we do not have an open purse; of course there is a limit lo the amount of money that any Government can spend on the matter, but above all we must see our way forward and re-establish our reputation as a country that has some of the healthiest livestock in the world and high quality beef and beef products.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I should point out that this is a very short debate and I should be grateful if those who are called would speak very briefly.

Mr. John Biffen: I welcome the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to take part in this debate. I very much appreciate his gesture, given the difficulty that he has with his voice. I believe that the whole House welcomes it; it underlines the importance of this topic to many of our constituencies. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall try to keep my remarks to the minimum, having regard to the many hon. Members who want to take part in the debate.
The situation that we are considering has some echoes for me, since the 1968 foot and mouth disease originated in my constituency. For many months, I felt that I lived with that topic, excluding all others. One very strong recollection that I have from that occasion was the fashion that developed for saying that the traditional slaughter policy for foot and mouth disease was being overtaken by the magnitude of the disease and that we should be much more sympathetic towards a vaccination policy. The clamour— certainly a representation— was resisted by Mr. Fred Peart, who, as Agriculture Minister, earned my genuine respect. He was a streetwise politician.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

Mr. Biffen: I see that his son and heir is present. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman represents quite the same robust views on the issues of our time.
Mr. Peart fought his battles with the Treasury, but above all, broadly speaking, he was the master of his own Department. He did not have to go across to Brussels every five or 20 minutes to seek guidance, secure permission, and so on. I am not in any sense being disrespectful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who has done an extremely good job in these difficult circumstances. Let the House be under no illusion, however, that the world is very different when a Minister must operate within a collective framework rather than carry out departmental policies as could be done in the time of foot and mouth disease.
We are confronted today not by the assertion of the traditional means of countering a disease but by a departure from the traditional means of countering BSE. I agree that the disease is relatively modern, has the most horrifying consequences, and is deeply worrying to the farming industry that wants to preserve a worldwide reputation for animal hygiene. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, although there were difficulties in the early days, which have been well documented, the incidence of BSE fell by 61 per cent. between 1992 and 1995, and that fall is continuing. We are all entitled to ask what should be added to that policy to make it more cost-effective. It is not as though we are bewildered at being confronted by a disease; just the opposite.
What is so important about the accelerated programme and the orders that might be laid in its support is, first, the extent to which we are envisaging the slaughter of cattle that have no visible symptoms of BSE; secondly the slaughter cannot be easily identified as directly assisting the reduction of BSE; and, thirdly, a substantial element of the programme is— presumably— related to the restoration of consumer confidence. All those propositions need to be much more explicit and much more thoroughly argued to secure the House's assent. That is why I think that it would be valuable to return to the subject in the autumn when we know rather more about the factors and the significance attached to them.
Every hon. Member is naturally anxious that our rural communities should be compensated for the losses incurred over BSE, and it is natural that our first thought is of the farming community. The difficulties go much wider. Shropshire county council and the Shropshire training and enterprise council produced a paper on what was thought to be the cost to the community. I advised them to submit it to the Treasury, because it seemed very prudent. We are considering substantial costs. Let there be no doubt whatever that they impact on total public spending and any assumptions of tax reductions. That is why we will want to consider the working of the scheme again to ensure that the financial costs are limited wherever possible. We should reconsider the scale of the slaughter that is so far envisaged where it is questionable that it will have any impact on the reduction, and the rate of reduction, in BSE.
I turn now to parliamentary control over policy. I am very pleased that we are having this debate, that it is on a one-line Whip and that it is low key. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that we are all concerned about seeking to support the agriculture industry. We all want to ensure that its interests are secured in equitable terms— and not only in our national community. We also want them to be reasonably effectively represented in the European Union. To that extent, the House must consider how best to make its representations.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will be sensitive to anxieties on this point. Criticising the present arrangements does not amount to xenophobia; it simply means, given our history of animal health and welfare, that we are not prepared to throw all that aside and adopt a system that we would never have adopted had we been left to make our own dispositions in reaction to events earlier this year.
This is a challenge to the maturity of the political judgment and political effect of national parliaments in relation to Community decisions. If we do not start getting it right now, we shall be doing no service to our friendship with Europe.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Following one of the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), I might point out that one of the features that I find most unsatisfactory in this programme is the fact that it is incredibly inefficient. Perhaps 98 per cent. of the animals that will be slaughtered do not have BSE. I listened intently to the Minister's opening remarks to hear how these cohorts of animals were to be selected for slaughter under the programme. I heard nothing about that— except that they will be animals from herds that have included cows with BSE. What about a herd of 50 cows in which just one has had BSE? How many of them will be slaughtered? We await the details.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) pointed out, the numbers have grown time and again— from tens of thousands, to 40,000, to 120,000. Now, there are even fears of 200,000 having to be slaughtered. It is rather like losing badly at Monopoly or poker. What is more, the numbers have always seemed arbitrary, and there is no enthusiasm on the part of farmers for the programme.
One of the greatest disappointments of recent times in the BSE story is the fact that no live test for BSE has been developed. We pressed for research into one many years ago. During a recent recess, I spent four or five hours going through the literature that I have accumulated on the development of a test for BSE in live animals. I then wrote a detailed letter to the Ministry of Agriculture— three pages in all— summarising some of the progress and inviting comments. I know that MAFF is hugely overburdened these days, but I did expect better than the six or seven-line reply that included no detailed comment on the research that I had quoted.
The Minister may say that this is unfair, but I detect a certain indifference in MAFF to developing a test for BSE in live animals, even though ultimately that will be the only effective, efficient way of eradicating it. I should like to think that, if the Labour party was in charge of agriculture over the next five or six months, we would launch an intensive effort to develop such a test, so that it would be ready by, at the very latest, December. Based on my knowledge of the subject, I feel sure that such an intensive effort would lead to a test for BSE in live animals by the end of the year.
The global total of animals to be slaughtered during the next 12 months will be 1 million, comprising the 15,000 a week barren cows, the extra numbers under this new programme, and the slaughter of cattle aged more than 30 months— yet only about 10,000 are certified as having BSE. One hundred times as many cows as need to be are being slaughtered. Hence the urgency of finding a test for BSE in live animals.
I was reassured by the Minister's remarks about compensation for farmers in terms of replacement values and market values. The terms seem fair and reasonable. I am pleased also to hear that the £ 29.5 million from the EC is to be topped up by the Government—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Wrong.

Mr. Williams: Really?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The £ 29 million is not to be topped up. I explained that we were going to use the money to make payments in respect of cattle sold between 20 March and 30 June— but we are not topping it up.

Mr. Williams: In that case I am deeply disappointed. The money is being aimed at the right target, but I can

see the force of the representations made to me to the effect that the beef market since 20 March has suffered such a devastating blow that the Government should have provided as much money as the EC is providing.
I want to say something about the fees being paid to abattoirs by the Government. I have been sent a letter— I do not know whether it was circulated to all hon. Members or just to those interested in agriculture— by Sam Morphet, chairman of the Bermans Group of Abattoir Operators. He is severely critical of the selection of abattoirs. There are 256 slaughterhouses in Britain, 41 of which have been allocated work under this scheme— but 19 of them have been allocated 82 per cent. of the work, and they are the largest abattoirs. That is completely unfair.
I find one paragraph of Mr. Morphet's letter staggering:
payment for the slaughter of cattle under the scheme is being set at the extraordinarily high rate of £ 107.50 per beast (£ 87.50 plus the value of the hide which is at least £ 20). To put this into context a reasonable commercial rate for the job is around £ 30 including the value of the hide.
I hope that the Minister will, this afternoon, explain to the House and to the people of this country— they are footing the bill— why abattoirs are being paid three times the going rate.
I should like, finally, to mention the environmental implications of the slaughter programme. We hear stories from time to time of severe difficulties encountered in the slaughtering of 1 million head of cattle. First, there is an acute shortage across Britain of rendering capacity. Indeed, in Wales there is not a single rendering plant. I hear, too, that Canterbury Mills plant in Ashford, Kent may be operating in an unsatisfactory way. A few weeks ago, there were stories of aqueous effluent from the plant being poured on to adjacent land, with the consequent danger of prions contaminating that land. The material may even have contaminated water supplies, and it is no coincidence that there is a cluster of CJD cases in that area. That rendering plant has been in operation for many years, and we cannot be so casual in disposal.
Some 800,000 cattle are to be rendered down to meat and bonemeal, but we have no way of disposing of it. It cannot be used in animal feed, and it must be stored. It may end up being dumped as landfill— a solution that I find most unsatisfactory. It would be far better if the material were incinerated, but although there is a problem with incineration capacity, that is the only environmentally acceptable solution. I hope that MAFF will show urgency in that regard. If this is to be an on-going programme for the next five or six years— if 800,000 cattle a year are to be slaughtered— we need to develop incineration capacity so that we can destroy the material and make certain no harm is done to the environment.

Mr. Tom King: In the south-west recently the Prime Minister referred to this crisis as the most difficult problem that he had faced in his 17 years in Parliament, and few who represent rural constituencies would disagree with him. We meet at an acutely worrying time for many farmers, and I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) said about the spirit in which this debate must be approached and the way in which the


Government have set it up. This initial debate on the Adjournment will be followed by another opportunity to consider the matter when we return.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that this has been a massive organisational challenge. I have criticised the time that it has taken to get the cull of cattle aged over 30 months under way. Clearly there continue to be problems and there will be more, so vast is the extent of the cull. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister should be congratulated on the compensation that he has achieved for farmers, which is fair. The scheme has taken time, as no one has ever managed to complete a quick chat with the Treasury. I recognise also that we are dealing with substantial sums of public money that have a significant impact on the economy. The offer of 90 per cent. of replacement costs is fair, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on what I recognise will not have been an easy discussion.
Having said that, I must join my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire in expressing the gravest concerns and some reservations about the policy. I am glad that we are not voting on it tonight, because I am not sure that I would be able to support it. The purpose of the measure— as stated in the consultation document— is to accelerate the decline in the number of BSE cases in the United Kingdom. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister confirmed in his speech that BSE is in sharp decline in any case. What will we achieve and what will it cost us to accelerate something that is in sharp decline?
The purpose is not simply to get an export ban lifted from Europe, but to restore confidence in British beef. Perhaps the return of McDonalds to purchasing on the British market and the success of the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign to eat more mince— I had mince in the House last night, and extremely good it was— may achieve more for British beef than the lifting of the export ban to Europe. I am not sure how big that export market will be, but it may be significant as an indication of confidence.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister may remember that when the measures were first announced some months ago, I said that the lifting of the ban in Europe was desirable, but not at any price. If colleagues consult Hansard they will find that phrase. We need to consider this carefully. If the purpose of this very distressing and expensive scheme is mainly to achieve the lifting of the export ban on live cattle to Europe, what confidence can we have that that will be the consequence?
There is distressing news about gelatine and tallow— matters that I thought had been settled. I understand that there is now fresh uncertainty, and that the ban on those products has not yet been lifted. Clearly it would be most unsatisfactory if we were to proceed with the scheme, only to find that we had not achieved our objectives. Practically every day in the newspapers, the scientific journals and the media, we hear of a new scientist who has found a new way of identifying the disease. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) referred to the importance of what he regards as the Holy Grail in this matter, the live test.
I do not know what will come forward in the three months between now and October— and three months in the life of this terrible saga is a long time. It is extremely wise of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to continue to approach the matter in the way he has. He has

tabled a draft order that establishes what the arrangements will be. There was uncertainty in some of the circulars that we received— including, I believe, from the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association— that the draft orders might change the terms of compensation. It would be helpful if my right hon. and learned Friend or the Minister could reassure those concerned that those are the terms of compensation if the cull goes ahead.
Farmers need to know where they will stand, but I believe that it would be right to hold our counsel and take all possible steps to firm up as clearly as we can just how good the undertakings from Europe are. If the framework is there and if the steps are achieved, we need to know that the ban will be lifted. We can then approach this difficult and challenging issue in that knowledge. But at present, I must say clearly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that I am not confident that I shall be voting in support of such a scheme in October.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), as I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues share many of his misgivings. This is a very short debate, and the draft orders were available to us only shortly before it began. It is regrettable that we have such little time to consider and debate the orders. If the Under-Secretary cannot respond to my specific questions during the winding-up speech, I hope we will have the benefit of written answers.
First, can we be given the latest date for the start of the accelerated slaughter scheme? From what the Minister said, it sounds as if that is directly dependent on the completion of the removal of the backlog of the 30-month cattle disposal scheme. If so, a considerable acceleration of that scheme is needed. As has been said in previous debates, and again tonight, there is a considerable backlog which in some regions is more dramatic than others. In particular, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's firm promise on sourcing through auction marts is not being met.
The regional discrepancies are huge. In the south-west, for example, 80 per cent. of farmers have animals that have been in the queue since the beginning of the crisis in March. That area has 26 per cent. of the total number of cattle over 30 months but has been allocated only 19 per cent. of abattoir capacity for the cull. We must adjust that balance quickly.
Similarly, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given assurances about allocation to smaller abattoirs, some of which are on the brink of bankruptcy. From Plymouth to Cumbria, I know of abattoirs that have not been brought into the scheme despite meeting the five criteria. They are being driven out of business by the carve-up, which is sanctioned by the Ministry and the intervention board but imposed by the cartel of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers and the United Kingdom Renderers Association. That must be sorted out in the next few weeks if there is to be success by October.
We must get value for the taxpayer's money. Is it not extraordinary that the Intervention Board's original instinct, which was to ensure competitive tendering from the abattoirs competing for the business, was overruled? The excuse for not using it given by Ministers in answer to my questions was that there was an emergency.
Eighteen weeks on, is it still an emergency that cannot permit competitive tendering? To correct the bias of the past will require positive discrimination in the next few weeks. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he expects by next week to be able to sort out some of the problems. Can the Minister of Agriculture guarantee that that will happen?
The Minister of Agriculture has made clear his chosen method to assist beef producers caught in the impossible market conditions of the past 18 weeks. We accept as a good basis for further action the £ 29.4 million that he said will be available to farmers who have suffered from the sale of young cattle at reduced prices. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), he made it clear that anything that happens in the autumn in relation to store cattle will have to depend on the recovery of confidence in the market. No hon. Member who represents farming communities is convinced that there will be a recovery as fast as that. I hope that the Minister will at least accept that if matters do not improve, he will take steps to redeem that situation.
On the accelerated slaughter scheme, is there now a firm commitment to the replacement value to which the Minister of Agriculture referred? If that proves inadequate, or if the consultation that is starting only today proves that 90 per cent. is not sufficient, can we be guaranteed that at least that figure will not be reduced? If there is to be a change, the percentage should be increased. What account will be taken of the considerable costs of disruption and dislocation for closed herds that do not buy cattle in? Those are difficult matters. The figures given by the Minister are not a realistic assessment of the true cost.
Similarly, if we find that milk quotas get out of kilter, can we be guaranteed that there will be flexibility in the coming months so that that does not produce yet more burdens on a hard-pressed sector of the industry? The criteria for identifying cohorts were mentioned. Can we be sure that the draft order will not be altered in the coming weeks so that farmers can know where they stand until October?
The Minister of Agriculture has to some extent spelled out the logic of his special arrangements for suckler and closed herds, but the draft is unrealistic if it is thought that a 50 per cent. addition is sufficient to meet the needs of such herds. The draft order refers in some detail to the problem of herds that have a large number of followers, which applies especially to closed herds. Against all previous practice they are being included in herd size which dramatically distorts the figure for compensation. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that. Otherwise, as the National Farmers Union said, it will look like sharp practice that criteria different from those of any previous scheme are being used.
The right hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) and for Bridgwater referred to the hoops that still must be gone through in Europe. If there are modifications to the scheme, as may well be necessary before October, will the whole scheme have to go back to the Standing Veterinary Committee? As we know, it does not approach the issues purely on scientific grounds. It is composed of representatives of the 15 member state Governments. The Prime Minister complained about the

way in which it has acted in the past. If the scheme is held up or modified yet again in the autumn, there will be further delays.
On his return from the Florence summit, the Prime Minister boasted to the House that his objectives had been met and that the ban on the export of beef derivatives would go. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said, it has not gone. The Prime Minister also said that there would be an agreed timetable for the removal of the comprehensive, worldwide export ban on beef. He emphasised that the time scale was in the hands of the British Government. On 24 June, the Prime Minister told us that he expected that, by the end of October, the export position for British beef would be restored to that which existed before 27 March.
Last Thursday, I put questions to the Minister of Agriculture on that very point. He answered:
The framework agreement is quite plain: it provides for a progressive lifting of the ban, in circumstances that are to be judged by the scientific and objective criteria that are spelt out. We are meeting our obligations and I expect the others to meet their obligations."— [Official Report, 18 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 1291.]
Last Friday, the Prime Minister admitted to farmers in Cornwall that his timetable for lifting the export ban was "pretty speculative" and added:
if we could meet that timetable, 1 would be very pleased but I think it will take longer.
Hon. Members would like to know who we should believe, and what was the purpose of the non-co-operation tactics in the forums of Europe that have left us in a worse state than hen we began.

Mr. Paul Marland: I am glad that the orders for the accelerated cull have not been signed because I hope that we may find that we do not need to indulge in it. It is sensible to pause for longer reflection and consult again those involved in the trade. There is no doubt that the cull is regarded with serious trepidation by the agriculture industry. I spent some time in the cattle sheds at the royal show. Farmers were horrified that their healthy cattle were faced with the possibility of slaughter. There seems to be no scientific justification for the cull, as other hon. Members have said. More importantly, there is no guarantee that the ban on exports will be lifted because of the cull.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about restoring confidence in British beef. I am pleased to tell the House that McDonalds told the Conservative agriculture committee that it is becoming more confident about the possibility of reinstating British beef in its restaurants. It is important to move with considerable caution in the House because the remarks that are made here have a considerable effect outside the House. I shall never forgive the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) when BSE was first debated for her incautious remarks, which had a devastating effect on the British beef industry. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) is taking a more constructive view, for which I compliment him.
We must move cautiously because of our experience of such matters. We all remember the problems of salmonella in chickens and the millions of chickens that were slaughtered to little advantage as a result of the scares and the sometimes bogus, ill-informed scientific findings that suggested that there needed to be a slaughter.
We have heard today about BSE in sheep. I have read in the newspapers that the difficulty is that Mr. Fischler's judgment is being called into question because he says that he did not mean to imply that farm sheep could get BSE. The Community is overreacting to his comments. I wonder whether by Christmas some ill-informed scientist will be saying that there is a possibility of turkeys getting BSE.
It is questionable whether the cull will be needed. I am glad that we have paused. Most importantly, we must ensure that all members of the European Community live by the same regulations. It is outrageous that BSE has been so under-reported in France and Holland. I am pleased that the French now recognise that fact. We want no more duplicity and cover-ups in Europe, planned silence by EU officials and campaigns of misinformation. One source stated:
Officials were instructed to show a cool attitude towards BSE in Europe in case it caused an unfavourable reaction in the markets.
BSE must be tackled on a Europeanwide basis, building on scientific advice. I remind our European partners that at the end of the day, the truth always comes out. Seeking to cover up the truth in their own countries in the past have given them extremely red faces today.

6 pm

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister said that £ 29 million compensation will be made available to beef producers, but I am disappointed that sum will not be topped up. Although we are debating the BSE crisis as it affects dairy and beef herds, we should concentrate our long-term efforts on making sure that the clean beef industry recovers sufficiently. If it is necessary to prop up the industry in the short term, that would be to the greater advantage of Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that compensation is to be paid quickly, so that it will benefit the incomes of farmers who have suffered considerably from the effects of the crisis. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to close his mind to further assistance later this year.
Doubts have been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House— and I add the voice of my own party— about the need for the accelerated slaughter programme. There are concerns about the way in which the issue was handled by the Council of Ministers but now that the programme has been accepted as part of the framework, we must make sure that it runs as smoothly as possible. I welcome the increase in compensation, even though it will not represent the full replacement value for which the farming organisations have been pressing. I urge the Minister to ensure that when the measure finally comes before the House, the compensation will be not less than the sum that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced. I trust that he will listen carefully to the representations that the farming unions will be making for increasing the compensations upwards from 90 per cent.
I urge the Minister to reconsider consequential loss and the direct loss of income that many farmers will inevitably face. The animals caught by the ASP will often be at the top of their productive lives. Their replacements may not be as productive in their early years— the yield per cow will be down, with a consequent loss of income. I ask the Minister to consider including in the compensation programme farmers having herds in which less than 10 per cent. of animals will be affected, of which there may be a considerable number.
I am grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the House for allowing as many hon. Members as possible to contribute to the debate, to reflect points of view from all parts of the UK. The BSE crisis has had a considerable impact on farming communities in Wales. We want fair compensation, consistent with the demands on the public purse. I want compensation payments to take into account the replacement cost of the animal and the consequential loss of income to the farmer. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to further representations between now and the time that the measure is finally approved by the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members still want to speak. Would it be in order to put the motion that the House do now adjourn, so that hon. Members who do not wish to adjourn may vote on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I do
not think that would be desirable. We should hear from the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The accelerated slaughter programme is a matter of enormous concern, which is why we have consulted extensively with the farming industry and were pleased to have the opportunity to debate the matter today. We will give full consideration to the points made by hon. Members. The purpose of making available but not signing the orders is that we will be able to return to them after the summer recess. We will welcome over the coming weeks and months comments and responses from the industry and hon. Members on the specific details put before the House today.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend have some regard for the morality of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of cattle for no good reason? I ask that against the background of the slaughter of 3.75 million head of poultry in recent years as the result of the salmonella crisis. Every day of every week, millions of fish are being cast back dead into the sea— also for no good reason.

Mrs. Browning: My colleagues and I have spent the past three weeks meeting farmers throughout the country, to listen to their concerns. In identifying which animals would form part of a cohort, we are specifically considering those that might be incubating BSE. There will be detailed discussions between vets and farmers, because the purpose of the scheme is to make sure that we identify as closely as possible animals that may be incubating BSE.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and others may find it helpful if I reiterate exactly what is meant by a cohort. We wish to identify animals that were fed at the same time as calves of animals that have been positively diagnosed as having BSE and which have been subsequently destroyed. Our intention is to identify, through records and discussions with farmers, animals that could have been part of the group that consumed infected feed.
We are not in a number-crunching game but are trying to identify BSE incubation, to reduce more rapidly the number of animals that are presenting as BSE cases. The incidence of the disease is in decline. We expect just over 8,000 cases of BSE this year, without any slaughtering. We estimate the figure to be in the region of 5,000 next year and 2,800 the year after.
We must try to reassure the public here and abroad of our ability to reduce the number of BSE cases as quickly as possible, and of our determination to address BSE— which has admittedly been on a huge scale in this country compared with others.
We have heard some helpful speeches tonight by hon. Members who have taken a close interest in the subject. We are sensitive to the fact that, for many farmers, the destruction of animals is an emotional thing. It is not only about finance and compensation. There is a lot of emotion attached to it. Often, a herd represents many years of hard work. For that reason, we are not seeking to muscle through a policy without taking into account the views of the industry and the House.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has made it clear that, in announcing the levels of compensation today, we seek not only to give what we believe to be a fair level of compensation, bearing in mind that we do so on behalf of the taxpayer, but to take into account the disruption that will be caused especially on farms which have a larger number of affected animals than others. That has been made clear in the representations that have been made to us.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) mentioned specifically the numbers—

Mr. Beith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 188.

Division No. 212]
[6.10 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Ashdown, Paddy
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Beith, A J
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Chidgey, David
Steel, Sir David


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Flynn, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Johnston, Sir Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Ms Liz Lynne.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Biffen, John


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Sir Rhodes


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brandreth, Gyles


Bates, Michael
Brooke, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)





Browning, Mrs Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lamont, Norman


Burt, Alistair
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Butler, Peter
Legg, Barry


Butterfill, John
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Carrington, Matthew
Lidington, David


Cash, William
Luff, Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coe, Sebastian
Madel, Sir David


Congdon, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Conway, Derek
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Marland, Paul


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Marlow, Tony


Cope, Sir John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Couchman, James
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Merchant, Piers


Devlin, Tim
Mills, Iain


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Duncan, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nelson, Anthony


Dunn, Bob
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Newton, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Page, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pawsey, James


Forman, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Rathbone, Tim


Freeman, Roger
Robathan, Andrew


French, Douglas
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Gale, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Rowe, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shaw, David (Dover)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gorst, Sir John
Shephard, Gillian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gummer, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Hannam, Sir John
Speed, Sir Keith


Hargreaves, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Spink, Dr Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Sproat, Iain


Hawksley, Warren
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hayes, Jerry
Stanley, Sir John


Heald, Oliver
Stephen, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Streeter, Gary


Hendry, Charles
Sweeney, Walter


Higgins, Sir Terence
Sykes, John


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Horam, John
Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Thomason, Roy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hurd, Douglas
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Tracey, Richard


King, Tom
Trend, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Walden, George


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Knox, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Kynoch, George
Ward, John






Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Young, Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Bowen Wells.


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after one and half hours after the motion was made, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [19 July].

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I
have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act 1996
Armed Forces Act 1996
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Damages Act 1996
Asylum and Immigration Act 1996
Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996
Social Security (Overpayments) Act 1996
Housing Act 1996
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996
Broadcasting Act 1996
Education Act 1996
School Inspections Act 1996
Deer (Scotland) Act 1996
Allied Irish Banks Act 1996
City of Westminster Act 1996

Orders of the Day — Code of Conduct

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, House of Commons Paper No. 604, and in particular— 

(a) approves the Code of Conduct prepared pursuant to the
Resolution of the House of 19th July 1995,
(b) approves the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct
of Members, the modifications to the rules of the House contained therein, and the guidelines to the application of the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 (Conduct of Members) contained in paragraph 58 of the Guide, and
(c) authorises the Committee on Standards and Privileges to
make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the House; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the House.

The House will recall that on 19 July 1995, almost exactly a year ago, the House resolved that a code of conduct should be drawn up and placed before it for approval. The report that is the subject of this debate, containing such a code and accompanying guidance, is the product of six months' very considerable work on the part of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair.
I want to pay tribute, with more than usual formality, to all the members of the Committee for the spirit in which they have approached that task. There were of course differences in the Committee, but all were resolved by discussion so that we achieved a consensus and produced a unanimous report for the House. Indeed, there was no vote of any kind at any stage in the whole of those six months in relation to the production of the code. I am prone to refer to the fact that I had a Quaker education, and I take some satisfaction from the fact that the Committee proceeded on what the Society of Friends would call a "feeling of the meeting basis", and that we managed to achieve those agreements.
I want to express, I am sure on behalf of the whole Committee, our collective gratitude, and I hope also that of the House, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, for the contribution that he made to our deliberations, with much wise advice.
I do not propose to speak at great length. The Committee's views are contained in the text of the report and the associated documents, and I want to ensure that there is plenty of time for Members who wish to contribute to do so. I shall also probably be less generous than I sometimes am in giving way to interventions, because it would not be wise for me to attempt further textual interpretation on the hoof although, if I can be helpful to the House later in the debate, I shall be glad to do so.
The first part of our report contains a code setting out general principles to guide hon. Members on the standards of conduct that the House and the public have a right to expect of all Members. In the second part, we seek to set out a guide to the rules on registration and declaration of Members' interests, to the rule banning paid advocacy and to the complaints procedure.
In preparing the guide, we reviewed the current rules relating to the registration and declaration of interests, and we recommend certain changes, which I shall briefly


summarise, but I should make it clear that very few of the changes are substantial. Our main concern was to achieve greater clarity and consistency in the way in which the rules are applied, taking account of the changes agreed by the House last year.
First, on registration, we recommend that the period within which a Member returned at a by-election should complete a registration form and submit it to the Commissioner should be extended to three months. That simply makes the position of Members returned at general elections and those returned at by-elections the same. At present, there is a difference.
Secondly, any Member who has a registrable interest that has not yet been registered should be required to abstain from any parliamentary action, except voting, to which the registration would be relevant, until notification of the interest has been given to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Members are of course already required to register a new interest within a month of acquiring it.
I hope that the following recommendation, like the rest, will be considered a commonsense recommendation. We recommend that accommodation provided by a local authority at no cost or at a subsidised cost to a Member solely for the purpose of holding constituency surgeries— not subsidised office accommodation, but accommodation solely for the purpose of holding constituency surgeries— should be exempt from registration.
The guide also updates and amends the guidance on the interpretation of the rules on registration and declaration, most of which have been in existence for some years. Those additions and modifications include confirmation of the long-standing practice that a Member need not register attendance at a conference or a site visit in the United Kingdom where the organiser meets reasonable travel and accommodation costs only. There is also an updated list of categories of overseas visits that are exempt from registration, including those that are financed from UK public funds.
Section 2 of the guide provides additional advice on the rules on declaration. For example, advice is given on the occasions— such as business questions, the report suggests— when Members should consider declaring a relevant interest even though there is no formal requirement to do so. We also recommend that the rule that requires notice to be given on the Order Paper of any relevant pecuniary interest when tabling any written notice should also apply to notifications given to the Speaker's Office in respect of daily Adjournment debates and requests to present a Standing Order No. 20 application to the House.
We have given particular attention to framing workable guidelines for the application of what is now called the "advocacy rule", passed by the House in its resolutions of last November. Our recommendations closely reflect the observations of our predecessor, the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its second report, which the House debated last November, as well as our own detailed consideration of the application of the rule on advocacy to the proceedings of the House.
Our full proposals on the application of the advocacy rule are contained in section 3 of the guide. Paragraph 58 sets out the guidelines on the application of the advocacy

rule as it applies, on the one hand, to initiating a parliamentary proceeding and, on the other, to participation in debate. The paragraph also gives examples of what is meant by initiation or participation in that context.
Paragraph 62 sets out certain parameters to the operation of the rule, which allow appropriate latitude to, for example, hon. Members who are successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills and receive assistance from outside bodies, and hon. Members who have visited a United Kingdom dependency at the expense of the Government of the territory.
Paragraph 63 gives illustrative examples of how the guidelines might operate in the case of a Member who is a company director or a paid adviser to an organisation, or who may be caught by the advocacy rule in some other way.
Finally— this is important as it would be a rash member of the Committee who said that he or she was convinced that we had every point of detail right— the motion before the House would authorise the Committee on Standards and Privileges to make minor amendments to the guide on the basis of experience.
I have said on several occasions that the resolutions agreed by the House last year constituted the most substantial strengthening of the rules of the House for a very long time. Today's resolution, while in one sense less significant as it does not in itself introduce further major change, is none the less important, both in consolidating those earlier changes and in translating them into the practical working guidance that can give them best effect. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I am delighted to have a chance to speak in this debate, and to be a member of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. When my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, asked me to serve on the Committee, I did not realise how much time it would take, but it has been time well spent, and the code of conduct is proof of that. Tributes are not often paid across the Floor of the House as the Chamber's layout makes a confrontational style of politics more manageable, but I appreciated how the Committee Chairman, the Lord President, managed our deliberations. It is remarkable that we never divided on the issues that we covered.
I shall restrict my remarks to three issues: sponsorship, visits and outside employment. Sponsorship is covered in paragraphs 21 to 23 on pages 16 and 17 of the code. Having re-read those paragraphs several times in the past few days, and following reports that started in last Sunday's The Observer, I suspect that there may be a loophole in paragraph 22, to which the Committee may have to return. The issues raised by The Observer relate mainly to Ministers, for whom there is a separate code of conduct that is supposed to be tougher than that for other hon. Members.
The exposure in Sunday's The Observer illustrates a failing of the current system. If one believes the report, hon. and particularly right hon. Members have appeared at dinners to be lobbied by business men and women, in return for large sums of money, laundered as tax-deductible "entertainment" expenses in company


accounts, but which quickly end up in Conservative central office funds. According to the reports, the Premier club is hiring out the Prime Minister at up to £ 100,000 per person to have dinners with business men and women bidding for some of the most lucrative privatisation deals that the Government have on offer. If the reports are to be believed, the chairman of the Premier club, Mr. John Beckwith, is not just bidding to take over Ministry of Defence homes that are to be sold off but, according to The Guardian today,wants to—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we have the privilege of saying what we believe to be right in this Chamber, if someone who has been referred to has specifically denied the report in The Guardian on the radio today, it would be courteous to people outside the House if the accusation were not read into the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am
sure that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) will have noted the point that has been made.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that Mr. Beckwith denies those reports and I hope that they are not true, but they show that the position must be dealt with and clarified. If people who take part in Premier club dinners are bidding for privatisation schemes, and the Cabinet decide who will be the successful bidders, there is a conflict of interests. That is exactly what the Nolan committee was set up to stamp out, what the public find distasteful, and the kind of practice that brings the House into disrepute. I hope that there is no truth in it.
I prefer the rightful indignation that the eminent journalist, Tom Brown, expressed in yesterday's Daily Record, where he said:
Any businessman who forks out £ 100,000 for the dubious privilege of having dinner with John Major should be a candidate for instant dismissal by his shareholders.
Two months ago, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Prime Minister said that he had devolved responsibility for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid possible conflicts of interest. If one believes any of the newspaper reports, that does not seem to be the truth. Clearly, the Prime Minister did not mean to mislead the House. Why, then, did he say those words to my right hon. Friend? If we are to rebuild the House's reputation, such activity must cease and all Members of Parliament must stick to a code that is fair and is seen to be fair and above board.
Overseas visits are covered in paragraphs 27 and 28 on page 18. There is a clear difference between visits undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which are part of our duties as Members of Parliament, and trips such as the "jolly" to Malta recently reported in The Independent on Sunday. Select Committee visits play an important part in informing hon. Members on issues on which they must report to Parliament. Foreign affairs and defence are two vital subjects on which hon. Members must be properly briefed. Britain's overseas aid programme supports many countries throughout the world, so the House has a duty to ensure that the receiving nations spend the money prudently. That is why the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other publicly funded organisations occasionally send delegations. Britain is also responsible, through the European Union, for helping emerging democracies.
Last January, I was one of six parliamentary observers at the elections to the new Palestinian council. It was certainly no "jolly". Apart from the blizzard in Jerusalem, the town of Nablus to which I was deployed was dry— no alcohol— and had only one hotel. The hotel was full and I found myself sharing a room with a communist parliamentarian from Portugal named Reuben. I hasten to add that we had separate beds. On polling day, observers were up at 5 am and on duty until the following morning. It really was no "jolly".
Such visits are an important part of our job and, as such, the Committee rightly decided that they should be exempt from registration and the advocacy rule. Although right hon. and hon. Members may still accept visits paid for by companies or foreign Governments, they must register each visit and may not initiate any parliamentary action relevant to that company or country.
Another important exception to the advocacy rule involves visits to United Kingdom dependencies, such as Gibraltar. On page 30, paragraph 62(7), the code states that
visits to a UK dependency at the expense of the Government of that territory must be registered and declared",
but that
such visits shall not be taken into account when applying the advocacy rule".
The third area that I shall mention briefly is paid outside employment. I cannot understand how hon. Members find the time to do justice to a job outside Parliament— perhaps my constituents in Cheltenham are more demanding than most. At the end of the week, I find that I have little or no time to spend with my family, let alone to do another job. The work of Members of Parliament is becoming more full time and the hours that we spend working for our constituents and for our country should reflect that fact. Although it is not stated in the code of conduct, I believe that our duties here should constitute our main income. I do not seek to ban outside interests altogether, as I believe that they help us to keep in contact with the real world beyond Westminster.
I hope that no hon. Member will seek to exploit loopholes in the new code of conduct. If hon. Members find what they consider to be loopholes— and there may be some— they should contact the Commissioner or a member of the Committee, and the Committee will deliberate on the matter. I hope that the code of conduct will go some way to restoring public faith in the House and in the people whom the public choose to send here.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The speech by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is unlikely to have that effect. That kind of speech may go down well at the Liberal Democrat party conference, but it is not appreciated in the House. If hon. Members choose to repeat allegations from a newspaper article, they have an obligation to listen to what is said by the principals involved. The person involved in that case made his views clear on the radio at lunchtime today. The hon. Gentleman could have checked the allegations by making a simple telephone call. As he obviously spent much time preparing extensive notes for his speech, I suspect that he could have uncovered Mr. Beckwith's response.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What did he say?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not intend to repeat what was said on the radio. I simply put on record the fact that someone who prepares his notes as extensively as the hon. Gentleman did, should take into account what is said outside this place.
I shall make three non-partisan points— although one might be considered, wrongly, to be partisan. The first concerns overseas visits by Members of Parliament. It is sad that a growing number of Members of Parliament do not know much about the world beyond the United Kingdom. I am glad that few hon. Members have experienced war— which is one reason why previous generations travelled. However, few hon. Members have experience of other Commonwealth countries, which can add to the quality of debate.
It is important that people travel whenever possible, and I do not think that we should rely simply on the opportunities provided by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and political observer trips. Perhaps this is not the right time to suggest it, but I believe that Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to travel almost where they want and when they want, perhaps every few years. It is important to know what the world is like: one can then interpret what is broadcast in the media and what appears in the newspapers according to one's personal experience.
I have had a number of overseas trips during my 21 years in Parliament. Some were balanced: I visited Israel and the west bank with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I later travelled to Lebanon and the west bank with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. That experience proved immensely important and useful when considering middle east issues.
I also visited El Salvador three times. I first travelled to that country with the parliamentary human rights group, which was funded by charities, in an attempt to delay the assassination of an archbishop. On my second visit, I represented the British Council of Churches at the archbishop's funeral mass. On the third occasion, I attended the free and fair elections that aimed to prevent assassinations of archbishops and many others. That trip was paid for by the Salvador Government, who wished to have credible observers in attendance.
I have no hesitation in declaring those trips and their sources of finance. I do not want Members of Parliament to be discouraged from taking trips because an entry in the Register of Members' Interests is interpreted as a bad thing. I urge hon. Members to apply the local newspaper test. They should ask themselves, "Am I doing something that I would mind being reported in my local newspaper?" If they would not mind, they should tell the local newspaper; and, if they would mind, they should either tell the local newspaper, or not do it. People expect a culture of openness.
The rules and the changes they embody take us backwards in one sense— I do not wish this point to be considered party political. The trade unions and other socialist societies set up the Labour party honourably. In the past, Labour Members were encouraged to state that they were sponsored by trade unions under the Hastings agreement.
As I understand it, that meant that up to 80 per cent. of candidates' election expenses could be met by a trade union. I am not saying that all trade unions sponsored candidates to that extent, but I think that I am correct in saying that that meant potentially £ 5,000 in funding at a general election and £ 16,000 at a by-election, as we have lifted the spending limits for by-elections.
Under the present regulations, a Member of Parliament in those circumstances would declare that he or she was sponsored above 25 per cent. for election expenses. There is a great deal of difference between saying that one is sponsored above 25 per cent.— which is what the rule requires— and declaring funding of £ 5,000 or of up to 80 per cent., which is what the Hastings agreement allows.
At election time, there are only two legal entities: the candidate and the candidate's appointed agent. Any money that is spent during the election campaign is spent on behalf of the candidate, and authorised by his or her agent. I do not believe that we have solved the problem by proposing that money should go to the constituency Labour party, as though it were independent of the candidate. Candidates will still benefit from that funding in what I call "cash for votes". I believe that we should try, in a non-partisan way, to be open about the real situation. I do not argue that it should be illegal, but openness is important.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to clarify one point. The Hastings agreement, which the hon. Gentleman described accurately, has been terminated by the Labour party, so there is no such thing as a sponsored Member of Parliament. The rules laid down by the Committee about contributions to election funds or annual contributions to constituency parties are the same for all hon. Members.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not trying to argue against the Labour party or against contributions to constituency political associations or parties— I hope that I have made that plain. However, openness is the key.
Money that is given to meet expenses at election time or on an annual basis can only advantage the candidate. Conservative associations and Liberal Democrat and Labour constituency parties do not exist as legal entities at election time— there are candidates and their agents, and that is it. I hope that the situation will be clarified further in time. I shall happily engage in discussions with people in an attempt to achieve that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, am I correct in suspecting that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of Lord Nolan's examining the question of political funding? He refers to funding local Conservative associations and Labour and Liberal Democrat constituency parties, and to money being donated at a local level. Therefore, is he in favour of the inquiry for which many hon. Members have been pressing?

Mr. Bottomley: I am not in favour of referring that matter to Nolan. This is not the time for me to provide a series of answers, but I believe that the current rules lead to greater obscurity, and are based on a legal fiction.
Finally, I refer to category 5, dealing with gifts, benefits and hospitality. Due partly to my peculiar position, my entry in the Register of Members' Interests refers to the fact that I am the recipient of a fair amount of corporate,


sporting and cultural hospitality, both in my own right and through my wife. I am grateful for that. However, it is difficult to know how seriously one should treat the detail in the category.
For example, I was invited to a party at an English Heritage property in my constituency which a newspaper report suggested cost significantly more than £ 215 per person. I do not want to have to ask my hosts— private or corporate, who may have some link with my position as a Member of Parliament— how much my presence has cost them, and then decide whether I should declare it. In time, perhaps we shall learn whether the category is achieving the desired result and whether there are many complications of the kind that I have illustrated.

Mr. Gary Waller: I welcome the publication of the code of conduct and guide to the rules, which will help hon. Members, but I want to refer to the application of the advocacy rule, because its implementation is already leading to consequences that I cannot imagine the Committee can have fully intended. May I give two or three instances of what I mean?
The other day, I heard from a Labour Member who came to the House relatively late in life that he was caught by the advocacy rule, because he is the recipient of a pension that he receives as a result of a lifelong career in the mining industry. As a result of that pension, which is properly declared, he is apparently precluded from initiating actions. He receives a continuing benefit as a result of his employment in that industry. That is my reading of the matter.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I point out that anyone who receives a pension from previous employment does not receive money in his or her capacity as a Member, and that therefore no restrictions would apply?

Mr. Waller: As I understand it, that Labour Member nevertheless receives a benefit that is related to an industry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.

Mr. Waller: If I am wrong, that Labour Member has clearly been misled, because he felt precluded from initiating actions. In a forum in the House, he drew attention to that point, but if he was wrong and has been misled, I am delighted to hear it.
May I give one or two other examples? Two or three years ago, I was invited by the Kashmir committee of Copenhagen in Denmark to speak at a one-day conference, which I did at some inconvenience. It meant flying out early in the morning. I saw little of Copenhagen. What I saw was from the taxi that took me from the airport to the conference centre, and from the one that took me on the return journey.
On my return, I properly declared the visit, and it appeared in the Register of Members' Interests as a one-off "benefit", but, as I understand it, as a result of the proposal that is to be implemented with the introduction of the 1997 Register, if I were to make such a visit in future, I would be prevented from initiating any action connected with Kashmir for one year.
That seems wrong, bearing it in mind that many of my constituents are Kashmiris and that they expect me to represent their interests, among those of my other constituents, in the House. I hope that the Committee will consider that concern, because it would be regrettable if Members were prevented from taking part in such visits for that reason.

Mr. Newton: May I establish one point, because it would make a difference, and I would be hesitant to make snap judgments anyway? Did my hon. Friend say that his visit was funded by an organisation in Denmark that was interested in Kashmir, by a Government— I am not quite sure whether one can talk about the Kashmir Government— or by what might be described as a non-governmental organisation? If the latter is true, I suggest that he considers paragraph (e) on page 32, where his reservations might be put to rest.

Mr. Waller: On this occasion, I am not sure, to be honest, where the money originated. It certainly came from the Kashmir committee in Denmark, but that committee would, I imagine, to some extent have been funded by the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, so there is a certain grey area here. Hon. Members may feel inhibited in accepting an invitation to go on such a visit.
More generally, Members may be invited to visit a country in which they have had a long interest. Today, I participated in a radio programme with another Labour Member, who for more than a decade has been a member of an all-party group connected with a particular country. He was invited by the Government of that country to visit it. He probably knows more about that country than almost any other hon. Member. As a result of the implementation of these rules, if he were to accept such visits in future, he would be prevented from speaking about that country for a year.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It seems not only that what my hon. Friend is saying is important, but that it would give the House an opportunity to say that, where the code is invoked, it is possible for the House in a particular debate to waive that restriction in the circumstances. I wonder whether that is the intention of the code.

Mr. Waller: The code seems to be clear and unequivocal. It is important that we should have transparency. Members who speak in the House should understand that everyone appreciates where they come from, and that they may have interests that have to be declared, but to prevent Members from speaking because they sought to improve the extent of their knowledge by accepting an invitation to visit a country seems to be going too far.
In general terms, the public would like full-time Members— we often hear that— but at the same time they want Members to know something of what goes on outside the House, and to have experience and an understanding of other countries. We must find a happy medium between those two principles. I wonder whether the advocacy rule in its present form goes too far, and whether it includes too many visits or benefits. When I


say "benefits", I use the term in the way in which it is expressed in the document. Many would not necessarily regard them as benefits.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I help the hon. Gentleman? He should try to draw a distinction between speaking in the House and initiating proceedings. In this whole area, that distinction is clearly drawn. If he reads the report in that sense, he will find that he has far more liberty on these issues than he thinks he has. I reassure him, because there is strong support for his case, and we believe that the report's recommendations meet all his concerns.

Mr. Waller: I fully appreciate that it is possible for a Member to speak in the House, provided that he or she has not initiated the debate or motion, or tabled a question. There is still a considerable inhibition. It should be unnecessary to prevent me from initiating a debate for a year after I have visited a country and found out a lot about it, provided that I have put it on the record and everyone knows about it. We have gone a little over the boundary that was necessary to ensure that there was full transparency. I just hope that the Committee keeps the matter under review.

Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire): I declare an interest, having served on the Committee.
I should like to join others in paying tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the Leader of the House. He has had a pell-mell round of meetings, coming from one and going to another. He has always seemed to be on top of the agenda, and has had an extraordinary ability to carry the whole Committee with him with a bluff common sense. In that, he has been fully supported— I pay tribute to this— by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House. It was an unusual Committee in many ways— very much the House at its best. It was non-partisan, and was seeking to safeguard the respect of the House outside this place.
The Committee has fully and fairly discharged the responsibilities under its remit, but I have one reservation. It concerns not so much the Committee's work, as its remit in relation to the resolutions of the House banning advocacy. In future years, the House may look back and feel that it has lost something.
I have never been a paid consultant to any industry or organisation outside the House, but the consultant to a trade union or trading association performs three clear roles. He holds a watching brief for that industry, advising it if anything is about to be raised in the House that would affect it— such as regulations, EC regulations or commercial interests that might damage it. Secondly, the consultant familiarises himself with the working of the industry so that, if there is a problem, he thoroughly understands it. Thirdly, he raises in the House matters that would affect that industry.
Hon. Members would, in effect, be paid overtime for in-depth study and knowledge about a particular industry. The House passed the resolution banning advocacy last November, and I fear that to some extent we may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Fewer hon.
Members will undertake the extra work to gain the in-depth knowledge of an industry, whether as a trade union representative or as the representative of a trade association.
Although I fully support the Committee's work in interpreting the will of the House, and I believe that we should have transparency, maximum disclosure, maximum openness and full and open declaration, I also believe that, in the long term, the House will regret that it has banned advocacy and, with it, lost the greater, in-depth knowledge that would have been brought to bear in our debates.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by joining those hon. Members who have complimented the Leader of the House on the way in which he chaired the Committee. Our meetings over the past few months have been purposeful. They may have been slow on occasions, but that was often because of the detailed work we were carrying out in order to try to ensure that the guidelines we produced were as consistent and comprehensive as possible.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said that he was surprised by the number and length of our meetings. Had he served on the previous Committee, he might have been relieved mat our meetings were not more numerous, or on a daily basis. He might also have been relieved that the Committee is not, as far as we know, sitting in the parliamentary recess.
Much work has been done in the Committee. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has taken a keen interest in the subject, whether he was going to speak. He said that he was not, as he thought that the report represented "good, hard, nitty gritty work by the Committee". I report that to members of the Committee as a compliment to all involved. It certainly felt like good, hard work, and I think that it has been productive.
The objectives we set ourselves were, first, to establish a code of conduct to lay down principles by which the actions of Members of Parliament could be judged in future. Secondly, we tried to write guidelines that would help in the detailed practical application of that code of conduct, so that, if hon. Members were in any doubt about what they would or would not be able to do following a visit, or if they had a particular interest, there would be advance guidance, and they would know exactly where they stood. The third— extremely important— objective that we have tried to stress is that all Members of the House have an obligation to take it upon themselves to ensure that they do not act in a way that would breach the letter or the spirit of the rules we have laid down.
I hope that what we have established is clear enough. I also hope that all hon. Members will read the code of conduct and the guidance notes. One thing that all members of the Committee have learned over the past few months is that many of us have forgotten some of the rules that existed, such as those relating to Members' interests. Many colleagues may not have read all the rules that existed, or understood the implications.
A couple of Conservative Members have taken issue both with the remit of the Committee and with how far it has gone. At this stage, I simply remind hon. Members why we got into the situation in me first place. It was


owing to the actions of a couple of hon. Members in the case that has become known as "cash for questions". That led the Prime Minister to establish the Nolan Committee.
It was the Nolan committee's report that led to resolutions in, and decisions by, the House designed to change the rules on registration and advocacy, and to ensure that whatever we did involved as much transparency as possible, in order to start to restore public confidence in Members of Parliament, because that confidence had been so badly affected by the "cash for questions" case. Public opinion demanded that the House set its affairs in order. The public's opinion of Members of Parliament is often jaundiced because of past incidents.
I hope that the code of conduct and the guidelines that we have established will work and will be practical— I think and hope they will be. I do not preclude the need for revisiting some of the issues, as other aspects, may arise from time to time. The Committee may have to see how the code works, and try to ensure that the guidelines are as precise as they should be.
It is interesting that, when the code of conduct was published last week, there was little press or public interest in it. That might have been because there were no spin doctors explaining to the press exactly what had happened— the press seem to have to be spoon-fed on all occasions. It might also have been because no member of the Committee leaked the document, which may be unusual these days.
The inquiries that I have received about the code of conduct have been strange. People have sometimes asked whether Members of Parliament had any rules before— I think that Members of Parliament have sometimes had the same thought. Of course there have been rules, and of course the majority of Members of Parliament have been acting and operating in a perfectly honourable manner, but because of what had happened in the past, it was important that we consolidated the resolutions of the House, brought them together in one document, laid out the code of conduct and issued as many guidelines as possible to ensure that the rules were clear and there were no escape clauses.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the recent publicity surrounding the Premier club, where contributions are made to the Conservative party in exchange for meetings with the Prime Minister. I referred to the need to have statements on that subject when I spoke in this morning's Adjournment debate.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) tried to say that, because John Beckwith had spoken about his lack of interest in social security offices on the "World at One" programme— although I think that he confirmed his interest in Ministry of Defence properties— it was not an issue.
The issue is not simply whether one business man has found ways of contacting the Prime Minister and has an interest in certain sales that are currently pending.
Bigger issues of principle are involved, which is why I believe that the issue of political party funding should have been referred to the Nolan committee when we first suggested it some time ago. Today is not the day to go into all those details, although I think that we will have to return to the issues on another occasion, and that: we should have had the inquiry before, and not after, the next general election.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On this, the last day before the summer recess, the accusations that have been made against the office of the Prime Minister are the most serious that we have heard since the most recent Liberal Government, when there were suggestions that Lloyd George was selling honours for cash. The suggestion now is that the Prime Minister is using and prostituting his office for his party's financial gain. There can hardly be a more serious charge than that.
I am sure that, when inquiries are made, we will find that that is not the case, and that the Prime Minister has not prostituted his high office for his financial gain. However, is it not a matter about which we need an inquiry urgently?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need an inquiry urgently. We need an inquiry into the entire range of party funding. The Premier club, however, raises questions that go outside the scope of this debate, such as whether it should be a matter for tax officials and for company auditors if companies are offsetting the costs of the dinners and their club membership against their tax liability. That is not the main thrust of this debate. Had the entire issue been referred to the Nolan committee earlier, however, we might have avoided the need to raise such questions, because such practices would have diminished.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Would it not be a little more sensible for the hon. Lady to find out a little more about this matter before commenting on it? I would not criticise for a moment the lavish dinners that the Labour party has held to raise funds and its profile, and to improve its contacts with the City and its donations from industry. All those activities are entirely legitimate, and I do not for one minute impugn anyone's integrity for doing or accepting such things. I ask only for a similarly charitable attitude from her towards the other side the House.

Mrs. Taylor: I suggest only that all parties should be completely open about the scale and sources of domestic donations and of those from abroad. We have always found it very difficult to achieve any agreement with the other side of the House on that point, which is why, as 1 said, the matter should have been referred to Lord Nolan some time ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I find it quite remarkable that Conservative Members resist the proposition of an inquiry into political funding— because it will happen under a Labour Government. So why not accept the proposition? Let us get on with it. Why be seen to be dragged and protesting, when the inevitable outcome is that such a debate will take place?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right, and not for the first time. It is only a matter of timing. Lord Nolan is, indeed, due to examine the whole issue. The problem is that he will not examine it until after the next general election. I think that the electorate have a right to know about party funding before any general election.
The hon. Members for Eltham and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) expressed some concern about hon. Members being able to undertake foreign visits for fact-finding purposes. We should make it clear that there are no restrictions at all on what hon. Members can do.
Restrictions apply only if an hon. Member has had a visit paid for. The restriction is simply that, for a period, the hon. Member should not initiate any action that would bring benefit to the sponsor of that visit. I think that that is a very minimalist approach. The approach is not over-burdensome, and it will not inhibit genuine fact-finding missions, which are frequently necessary.
The hon. Member for Keighley made a couple of points, during which I felt it right to interrupt him. I am grateful to him, as I am to the Leader of the House, for giving way. The hon. Member made two points— one of which was of concern to him, and another which was of concern to a colleague— that show that not all hon. Members fully understand all the implications of the current rules or of the new rules.
An hon. Member who receives a pension or undertakes employment that is totally unrelated to their membership of the House is not restricted in his or her activities. An hon. Member who goes abroad at the request of someone abroad who pays for that visit is prohibited not from speaking in the House but from initiating any action for a certain period.
The hon. Member for Keighley said that, on one visit, he was not sure where the money had originated. I must say that the onus is on each hon. Member to be sure who has paid for a visit that he undertakes, and that it is somewhat foolish to undertake visits on any other basis.
The hon. Member for Eltham talked about sporting activities. He also cited an English Heritage party in his constituency. All hon. Members, as constituency Members of Parliament, are entitled to normal hospitality in our own constituencies. Clearly, however, there are problems with sporting occasions, and with estimating their value. On this matter— as indeed on every other matter— we now have the Parliamentary Commissioner, who can give advice to hon. Members. In the first instance, it is to him that all hon. Members should go if we are seeking advice on that basis.
The hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), who served on the Committee, disagreed with its starting point. He wishes that we could turn the clock back, and that we had never passed the resolutions of last November. I think that we had no alternative but to tighten up our rules. We were right to do so, not only because of the problems that had arisen but because the lack of public confidence in the House.
I do not think that this code of conduct and the guidelines that we have laid provide the answer for everything, but they will start the process of giving clearer guidance to hon. Members about how they can and cannot act. The public expect no less, and I hope that this will be a useful starting point.

Mr. Newton: With no discourtesy intended towards the House, I do not think that I need to sum up at length. I regret that material was introduced into the debate which is not very relevant to it, and that it has been used to recycle allegations that— as we now know— have been denied by one of those named. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on the material at Prime Minister's Question Time on 23 July.
However, given the fact that what was said was said, I must say that the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is— I think that I remember the phrase used by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)— "prostituting his office" is an absurd allegation to be made under the privilege of the House, and that it is bordering on the disgraceful.
In quieter terms, I shall deal with the debate in general. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has said on every subject other than the one that I have just mentioned. I am grateful to her and to other hon. Members for their kind words about my chairmanship. I reciprocate those words, and endorse the compliment paid by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) to the hon. Member for Dewsbury on the part that she played in our deliberations.
I agreed with the comments by the hon. Member for Dewsbury on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I think that, if he examines paragraphs 63(d) and 63(e) of the report— to one of which I have already referred— he will find that we have dealt with the anxieties that he expressed, which are the anxieties that were expressed last November. I think that we have dealt with those anxieties successfully in this code, and that he will find that his mind can be put at ease.
Equally, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that, unless I am misremembering the 25 per cent. rule, which he regards as somehow a slip backwards, it is basically exactly the same rule as already exists. There has been no change in that respect, but there has been a change in the nature of the on-going relationships of the Labour party under what was known as the Hastings agreement. Clearly, that is a matter for the Labour party, not for me.
Our approach has indeed been consensual, because I also agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, and, to some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley— had he been here, the same could be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims)— expressed reservations about what the House did last year. However, the job of the Committee that I now chair has been to give practical guidance on interpreting and implementing decisions.
I think that the House should now—

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way.
I hope that the whole House will acknowledge the need for us to examine the rules and consider the Committee's work, and agree that we must collectively try to make the rules work to the benefit of the reputation of this place, about which we all care a great deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, House of Commons Paper No. 604, and in particular—

(a) approves the Code of Conduct prepared pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 19th July 1995,


(b) approves the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, the modifications to the rules of the House contained therein, and the guidelines to the application of the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 (Conduct of Members) contained in paragraph 58 of the Guide, and
(c) authorises the Committee on Standards and Privileges to make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the House; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the House.

Orders of the Day — Central Railway Order

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I
must advise the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move,
That this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of that Act by Central Railway plc on 20th May 1996 and entitled The Central Railway Order, for the construction and operation of a railway between Leicester and the Channel Tunnel via Rugby on a dismantled railway alignment to link with the existing Chiltern line through Buckinghamshire to near Olympia in London, from where a new railway would be constructed in a tunnel under the Thames to Streatham, where it would run beside the existing Brighton line to south of Coulsdon, then under the North Downs close to the M23 and then beside the existing railway to Tonbridge, Ashford and Folkestone; and for the construction and use of freight terminal sites at the M1/M6 junction and next to the M25 and M40 in Buckinghamshire.
As this is the first time that the procedure under section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992— or TWA for short— has been used, I should perhaps explain briefly some of the background to and purpose of this debate.
The TWA has replaced private Bills as the means by which new railways, tramways and certain other works projects are authorised. It gives Parliament a continuing and important role in relation to schemes of national significance by requiring Parliament to consider and vote on the principle of such schemes.
The purpose of this debate is to enable the House to decide whether the Central Railway application should go forward for more detailed consideration at a public inquiry and, possibly, to the eventual making of the order authorising its implementation.
The motion before the House seeks approval of the proposals. I should perhaps explain why the motion is one to approve the project. I considered whether it should be a "take note" motion which could be amended by hon. Members who wished either to amend or oppose it. I concluded that it is only by proposing a motion to approve the project that a conclusive outcome could be assured at the end of a single debate.
If the House rejects the motion, the scheme is effectively dead as the order could not be made. If the House passes the resolution, the project will be considered in another place. Only if the application is approved in both Houses can it proceed to more detailed examination at a public inquiry.
The House will wish to bear it in mind that Parliament's endorsement of the principle of the project would be bound to carry weight with the inquiry inspector in making a recommendation.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My intervention will be brief as I realise that it is a short debate. Is not it clear— if not, will my hon. Friend the Minister make it clear— that we cannot adopt the desirable aspects of the project, which include freight coming off the roads and on to rail, which is something that we all want, while at the same time rejecting the awful aspects:


that it would damage wildlife in my constituency and send heavy trains within inches of people's homes, which is intolerable? Is it possible to take partial decisions?

Mr. Watts: I think that my hon. Friend will find that I deal with that matter a little later in my speech.
As I was saying, endorsement of the principle by the House would weigh with the inquiry inspector and, indeed, might weigh with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in deciding whether to make the order. It would not necessarily mean that the order would be made. The Secretary of State could still decide, having taken into account the inspector's report, that the application should be turned down. This is no different from the Secretary of State's statutory position under general planning and highways legislation.
I turn now to the specific application before us. Central Railway's objective is to establish an independent railway connecting the midlands, London and the channel tunnel. The proposed alignment is described broadly in the motion. The railway would use standard track gauge but, unlike existing railways in this country, would have greater clearances to enable lorries and double stack containers to be transported.
The main service to be offered would be frequent shuttle trains carrying lorry trailers between freight terminals located near motorway junctions. Central Railway says that the project has been planned to maximise the use of former or existing railway lines. Where new track is necessary, it would be mostly adjoining existing lines.
The draft order contains powers for Central Railway to build and operate the railway and terminals, to acquire land compulsorily, to create new accesses to motorways and other roads, and temporarily or permanently to stop up or divert streets and footpaths. A number of provisions seek to disapply parts of public general legislation, including the regulatory regime for licensing and track access in the Railways Act 1993. Central Railway has also applied for planning permission to be deemed to be granted for the construction and use of the works specified in the draft order.
The works would involve, typically, the laying of railway lines with associated signalling and overhead electrification equipment, and civil engineering such as earthworks, tunnels and bridges. Because of the larger train gauge, the track would need to be lowered, or existing bridges raised, to enable the freight trains to operate. Freight terminals would be constructed near Rugby and at New Denham in Buckinghamshire, and a maintenance facility would be provided at Lutterworth.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Is not it the case that the plan involves the construction of some 24 km of tunnels, some of which would be wider than any tunnels now in use?

Mr. Watts: The proposal certainly involves some extensive tunnelling, but, again, I shall come to that point a little later in my speech.
The application also contains proposals for new passenger stations at Lutterworth, Rugby, Woodford Halse, Brackley, West Wycombe and White City. Central Railway estimates that about £ 3 billion will be required to finance the project.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister accept that for a fraction of the £ 3 billion that he cited we could upgrade the existing west coast main line to the necessary standard and probably move freight from road to rail, something for which we perceive there to be a demand? Would not that perhaps be a better way forward?

Mr. Watts: The two issues are fundamentally different. I have not seen estimates for upgrading the freight capacity of the west coast main line which would come anywhere near £ 3 billion. Essentially, however, it is for the private sector promoters to decide whether it is worth their while to promote such a project and to raise the finance. Of course, this is an entirely privately funded proposal, whereas the hon. Gentleman is possibly thinking of some public sector money for upgrading the west coast main line.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Has there been any consultation between the developers and any local authorities along the route?

Mr. Watts: Applicants under the TWA are advised to consult local authorities and others affected by any proposals. The company claims that it has consulted extensively.
If parliamentary resolutions approving the project are passed, the company would seek to raise additional equity funding to finance the inquiry and statutory blight compensation. Central Railway estimates that the project would capture and retain 25 per cent. of the UK-continental market for lorries and containers, which is about 15 per cent. of total UK-continental freight tonnage, within four years of opening.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am sure that we would all be interested in a list of the companies that are providing the money to keep Central Railway afloat. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have such a list; it is just that I have not seen it.

Mr. Watts: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend. I do not have such a list. Frankly, I do not think that it is relevant to the consideration by the House of the principle.

Sir David Mitchell: As we are dealing with a new procedure, at what stage will there be an examination of the financial viability of the process?

Mr. Watts: That would be appropriate at a public inquiry were both Houses of Parliament to allow the scheme to proceed to that point. It would be unreasonable for us to expect the company to have raised the full project financing at this stage in the development of the project.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: If the financing of the project is crucial to its viability— as to whether it would lead to extended planning blight— does my hon. Friend have any idea whether his Department could undertake a feasibility study into whether the total cost of the project would be £ 3 billion or £ 6 billion, as has been suggested elsewhere?

Mr. Watts: It is not for my Department to second-guess the promoters of the project. On the matter of blight to which my hon. Friend referred, the company has assured us that it has the means to meet any statutory blight obligations that it might incur.

Mr. Tom Cox: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) has just referred to the crucial issue that concerns many of our constituents. Why should they suffer years of blight on the property they have worked hard to buy and on which they may still owe a considerable amount of mortgage repayment? Why should they suffer an on-going unawareness of what will finally happen? That is the crux of the issue that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Watts: As I said, the company has given us assurances that it can meet any statutory blight obligations that it incurs. If we were to find that it was unable to meet such obligations, we would determine against the application.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I had not intended to speak, but I am becoming increasingly bemused. Has my hon. Friend met the promoters? Is he totally satisfied that they really are people of substance and that they can carry out the project? If he is not, why are we wasting our time?

Mr. Watts: At this stage of the application, it is not for me or my Department to determine whether the company would be able to raise £ 3 billion. That is a matter for the company. Our legitimate interest is in whether the company could meet blight obligations. That is obviously a concern to every constituency Member affected by the project. As I have said, the company has given us undertakings that it can meet any such obligations. If we were to find that it was unable to do so, we would refuse the application.

Ms Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ove Arup commented:
'They have clearly not demonstrated that they have adequate funds available to meet their obligations for compensation for blight and to fund the public inquiry".
The House should be aware of that.

Mr. Watts: I am aware of that opinion, which is taken from a report that was prepared in support of some of the objectors to the project. However, until it could be shown that the company's undertakings cannot be honoured, we would be wrong to make a judgment on that.
As to the funding of the public inquiry, as I said in my opening remarks, the company intends to raise the additional funding required to take the project to a public inquiry in the light of a decision made in the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: I have already inquired in a letter whether the company could pay compensation for blight if the House approved the order tonight. My understanding is that there is no such guarantee. However, is there not something fundamentally wrong with the 1992 Act if a company without evidence of financial viability plus the lack of coherent planning

policy can create such mayhem without first producing a planned proposal? Frankly, if it happens again, the Act must be changed.

Mr. Watts: There may well be lessons to learn from this case as to the way in which such matters are dealt with, but as this is the first time that the powers have been used, it would be premature— certainly in tonight's debate— to conclude that the procedure is flawed. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it may be appropriate for us to examine the procedures in the light of experience of this case.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The old system required the Government to be neutral if they were in support of a proposal. They state in their paper of 19 July:
'The Government is not however persuaded that the proposals have such substantial merit as to enable it to commend the application to Parliament. It has therefore decided that its stance on the scheme should be neutral.
Can I take it that under the new procedure, being neutral basically means being unconvinced and probably being against?

Mr. Watts: No. Being neutral means what it says. We have adopted a neutral stance at all times in our dealings with the company. However, there is a question as to what might have shifted the Government from being neutral to supporting or opposing the project. For the Government to support such a scheme, they would need to be persuaded that the merits of the proposal were so overwhelming as to justify unequivocal support. I did not reach that conclusion. That is why the position of the Government tonight is still one of neutrality— of neutral neutrality.
Central Railway estimates that the project would capture and retain 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom and continental market within four years of opening. By 2010, the midlands terminal would be catering for 16 million tonnes of freight and the New Denham terminal for 10 million tonnes. The average number of freight trains required to deal with that volume would be 98 per day.
Central Railway is seeking to keep compulsory land acquisition to a minimum, but recognises that realignments of existing tracks will be required at some locations. It believes that most work could be carried out within normal maintenance schedules, but some may involve temporary closures with replacement bus services. It says that no significant interference with services will be required during the upgrading of the Chiltern line but that the company will liaise with Railtrack and London Underground to co-ordinate the construction programme so that disruption occurs during periods of minimal railway operation.

Mr. Tim Smith: As my hon. Friend has referred to the fact that Central Railway proposes to adapt the existing Chiltern line, what assessment has the Department of Transport made of the likely impact of the scheme on the commuter services that my constituents use every day?

Mr. Watts: If the House and another place were to allow the scheme to proceed to public inquiry, and if such an inquiry recommended that it should be permitted to go ahead, in deciding whether to make such an order, I would have it in mind that I have powers to vary the order and


I would be prepared to do so In so far as I deem it necessary to protect existing passenger railway services. An assessment has not yet been undertaken because we are at too early a stage in the consideration of the application.
The company says that it would seek to keep disruption to a minimum by ensuring that works were carried out during periods of minimum rail operation— commonly on Sundays or late evenings. After construction, the company claims that no existing services would be affected by the operation of the new railway. In very broad terms, that is the applicant's case.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Those are extraordinary claims. Although my hon. Friend's position is neutral, I am encouraged by the fact that I have never before heard such a barrage of real questions on such an issue. I am encouraged by the mood of the House.

Mr. Watts: I have tried to set out in fairly neutral terms the case that the company has presented.
I turn to the Government's view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Perhaps the House will find it helpful if I explain how we arrived at this position of neutrality. The Government are anxious that the decline in rail's share of the freight market is checked and reversed. We believe that the key to that lies in giving the private sector the right opportunities and incentives. That is why five of British Rail's six rail freight companies have already been privatised and the sixth is on the market. The Railways Act 1993 created new opportunities— which have already been exploited— for entirely new own-account rail freight operations to be established. We continue to make available substantial support to rail freight through freight facilities and track access grants.

Sir Keith Speed: The rail companies that have been privatised, indeed all rail freight, and many other organisations are backers of the piggyback consortium, which presents a totally viable solution. It would cost £ 100 million, mean no new railways at all and operate a freight service from Glasgow to Folkestone. What is the Government's view on assisting that in the next two years?

Mr. Watts: I am not going to give any commitments on assistance, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the piggyback idea is most interesting and has considerable potential. I hope later in the summer to see a demonstration of a prototype piggyback vehicle.
The Government also want to bring private finance into the provision of transport infrastructure. The channel tunnel rail link is the outstanding example of private finance helping to provide an entirely new railway line. Central Railway's proposals would go further in so far as they would be 100 per cent. privately financed. So, from two points of view— freight on rail and private finance— the Government's objectives could be assisted by Central Railway's plans. It is for those reasons that, although we have urged the promoters to consult widely and take account of consultees' views, we have not discouraged them from working up their proposals.
The question for the House tonight is whether Central Railway's specific proposals have sufficient merit to be worthy of the House's endorsement in principle. That

must involve consideration not only of whether the project fits the broad thrust of transport policy, but whether the particular proposals are acceptable in principle, having regard to such matters as environmental impacts and effects on existing passenger services during construction and in operation.
Under the TWA procedure, there is a six-week objection period. The Department received almost 14,000 representations dated on or before the deadline of 1 July. Roughly 98 per cent. of respondents registered objections to the project. The Department has analysed some 6,600 objections, and found that more than 90 per cent. of objectors raised concerns about local environmental impacts of the project during construction and/or in operation, 60 per cent. object to the perceived adverse impacts on rail passenger services and road traffic, and 40 per cent. think that the principle of the project is flawed.
Blight is naturally a concern. All major new developments are likely to have adverse local effects. The House may wish to take a broader view does the project offer sufficiently strong regional or national benefits to outweigh any local disbenefits? The House may wish to give due weight to the views of the planning authorities and the national environmental agencies, which are able to make an objective and strategic assessment of the project. Only two authorities— Surrey county council and Reigate and Banstead borough council— have expressed support for the project in principle, and even they expressed concerns about the adequacy of the information supplied by Central Railway. While supporting the principle of moving freight by rail, 37 local authorities said no to the project and expressed serious concerns about alignment, locations of the terminals, adequacy of the environmental statement, impacts on existing railway services, and, around the freight terminals in particular, road traffic.
All the environmental organisations that have responded are also either opposed to the scheme or have expressed specific concerns. Bodies such as English Nature, the National Trust, the Environment Agency, the wildlife trusts, the Council for the Protection of Rural England— with the exception of two of its branches— and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have been critical of the adequacy of the environmental statement. The National Trust, for example, has commented that the statement does not refer specifically to its land, even though the Central Railway's proposal bisects the trust's Sandhills estate near Bletchingley in Surrey.
The Government want more freight to be carried by rail and more transport infrastructure provided by private finance. However, we cannot— indeed we should not— ignore the number and weight of representations that we have received against this project. Many of them were from persons who and organisations that support the policy of moving more freight by rail. It would be wrong to consider the principle of such a scheme without regard to its effect on the ground. Nevertheless, if we had thought that the arguments for the specific proposals outweighed the force of the objections, we might have been prepared to recommend that the House approved them. But we are not so persuaded. We are therefore making no recommendation in respect of this application and leave the decision to the good judgment of the House.

Mr. Keith Hill: I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members want to express their constituents' concerns.
The Central Railway scheme will demolish many homes and properties and cause grave disturbance and blight to many more. Thousands of ordinary households will suffer in one way or another whether the scheme is built or not. The question is whether the benefits of such a proposal can possibly outweigh its manifest disadvantages. The answer is, as I shall argue, a resounding no, which is why the order deserves to be roundly defeated and why I give notice of my intention to call a Division at the conclusion of the debate.
In the Streatham Vale area of my constituency, the building of a two-track railway would mean the loss of homes, gardens and retail premises. The proposed running of unusually heavy complete lorry trailers and double-stacked containers would cause unacceptable noise and vibration. Above all, the planned construction of the six-mile tunnel under London from Streatham Vale opens up the prospect of a protracted nightmare of noise, lorry movements, dust and pollution for local residents.
Two years ago, a Department of the Environment advice note called for the diversion of channel tunnel-related rail freight around, and not through, London. For several years, the London Channel Tunnel Group— a consortium of London boroughs of all political persuasions— has advocated the upgrading of rail routes around London from Redhill to Reading for use by such freight. A Department of Transport study has acknowledged the technical feasibility of that so-called North Downs line.

Mr. Rowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, this very week, British Rail set aside £ 500 million to take account of the fact that it has grossly overestimated the amount of freight passing through the channel tunnel? Does not that show that speculation about how much freight capacity is needed is still at a very rudimentary stage?

Mr. Hill: I entirely agree. The fact is that the tunnel under London is not just environmentally unacceptable: it is unnecessary.
It goes without saying that no one in this Chamber or in the country challenges the principle of the need to transfer more freight from road to rail, but there are other more immediate, more practicable and more viable means of achieving that objective.
Next month, the first wagons operated by the public-private consortium, the piggyback consortium, will begin running between Glasgow and London on the west coast main line. It is one of several projects designed to carry lorry semi-trailers piggyback fashion on rail wagons. Unlike the Central Railway scheme, the loading of semi-trailers can be carried out at railheads nationwide; Central Railway is proposing just two terminals. Unlike in the Central Railway scheme, semi-trailers can be carried throughout the continental rail network; Central Railway's lorries would have to be offloaded at Calais. Unlike Central Railway, which proposes an entirely new line, carrying semi-trailers by rail requires relatively minor upgrading of lines and bridges, at relatively modest cost.

Mr. Denis MacShane: In south Yorkshire, far from Leicester, London or the Chilterns, there is great concern about the line. A private sector initiative in Doncaster is building an important freight hub that will move a lot of south Yorkshire's heavy engineering goods off the roads on to rail, swinging around London into Europe. Is my hon. Friend therefore aware that Central Railway's proposal, if it goes ahead, would seriously damage the financial viability of that project? The message from south Yorkshire is that the Government, far from being neutral, should vote against the proposal.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the general point that the project would put a question mark over a range of enormously valuable and immediately achievable schemes. That is a powerful reason for opposing the scheme.
The cost of the piggyback consortium project would be about £ 100 million, compared with Central Railway's £ 3 billion— if we believe Central Railway's figures, which few experts do. London and Continental Railways, which is to build the channel tunnel rail link, has analysed the scheme and concluded that it will cost £ 6 billion— twice Central Railway's estimate. Ove Arup, which has some reputation as a transport and engineering consultancy, claims that the total costs will be 90 per cent. more than Central Railway estimates. Another group of transport consultants, MDS Transmodal, has calculated that Central Railway has overestimated the likely revenues by as much as three times and will never be able to recover the questionable £ 3 billion, let alone twice that sum.
The business case for Central Railway simply does not stand up to scrutiny. After all, it is a company with net assets of little more than £ 100,000. At the end of last year, its managing director wrote in the company report:
Obviously, the company cannot guarantee that money will be available from investors to build the railway".
That, to say the least, was something of an understatement. The proclaimed jobs and the proclaimed equipment purchases are mere fantasies— they will never materialise.
This evening, the House is being invited to approve a public inquiry into the scheme. Such an inquiry would add two or three more years to the blight that would affect thousands of householders along the route until the scheme inevitably folds. We cannot fairly inflict that on our constituents. This is the wrong scheme at the wrong time from the wrong company. It is up to the House to take the responsibility for this matter and to consign Central Railway's scheme to the scrapyard of history.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): As has already been said, the issue of whether to proceed with this scheme with the endorsement of the House is one of principle. It is thus inescapable that, by the end of the debate, the House must take a view on whether the scheme is financially viable. The House would have no justification for sending the scheme on to a public inquiry unless it was reasonably satisfied that it was financially viable.
The difficulty that we face— it is entirely of Central Railway's own making— is that the company has given the House a paucity of information about the scheme's


financial viability. I tried to obtain from the chairman of the company a copy of the prospectus that it issued in 1995 when it made its last funding issue. The reply that I received was highly instructive. The chairman said:
I do not wish to be remotely difficult, but we do not, as a company policy, distribute the prospectus on a general basis as the offer to which it refers has been closed for some considerable time.
That is an extraordinary response to a Member of Parliament with a direct constituency interest in a project for which a company is seeking approval. Luckily, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave me a copy from his filing cabinet, for which I was grateful.
The prospectus is the crucial document when it comes to financial viability. It is the only one that gives us some information about what the company's expectations are in terms of revenue, cash flow, operating costs and assumptions about the transfer of freight from road to rail. It is bizarre that the House should be holding this debate without the prospectus being available in the Vote Office. No doubt there is a copy somewhere in the Library— it always manages to get hold of every single piece of paper.
Significantly, however, when the documents for this debate were deposited by the company in the Library of the House on 20 May, the huge bundle of documents— I have taken some pains to comb through them— did not include either a prospectus or any information of consequence about the financial viability of the scheme.
As for the company's attitude, it has placed a most interesting document in the Vote Office, telling Members of this House:
So far as the company is aware, private sector developments have never been required to prove financial viability, and objections on that score are misconceived and should be disregarded.
Is it satisfactory that a public company seeking the approval of this House should thus dismiss objections on the grounds of financial viability as apparently irrelevant?
Only two of the documents placed in the Library bear on the financial viability of the scheme. One of them is headed "Cost Estimate". It might be thought that this would be a bulky document since it concerns a £ 3 billion project. I have brought it with me into the Chamber; I am not exactly groaning under its weight. It consists of a single sheet of A4 paper, containing on one side 17 lines of cost headings. That is all the costing information that has been placed before the House.
The cost estimate in itself is subject to great doubt. It is believed to be an underestimate, possibly by 100 per cent. The real cost probably amounts to £ 6 billion.
The second document placed in the Library is headed "Funding Statement". It too consists of one side of one sheet of A4. I want to quote just one sentence from it, as it is the only sentence that the company has placed before the House concerning the scheme's supposed financial viability. The sentence reads:
The directors of Central Railway believe that the projected nominal internal rate of return for this project is sufficient to allow the project to be funded in the market through the development and construction phases and into the operational phase.

That is the one and only indication of the financial viability in the documents placed in the Library.

Mr. David Congdon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir John Stanley: No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak and I shall be as brief as I can.
That is the one sentence the House has been provided with as a basis on which to proceed on an assumption of financial viability— a belief of the directors, expressed in one sentence and wholly unquantified. It is significant that hon. Members are being treated with infinitely less candour on the issue of financial viability than was the case just 15 months ago, when the company made its last application for funds in an equity issue.
When the prospectus was issued, in addition to getting the company's view about whether the project would be financially viable, those who got hold of the prospectus were at least told of the financial risks. In this case, the House has not been told anything of the financial risks.
I shall quote one of the 15 risks detailed in the earlier prospectus.
The company may fail to raise equity or debt on the terms proposed in the Base Case, or at all.
It is clearly stated that the company may not be able to raise the money at all. Why has that key financial information not been placed with all the other risks in the process? Why has that not been placed before this House or in the Library? Why was it not put in the Vote Office?
It is not acceptable for hon. Members to be asked to approve this project on the basis of totally inadequate financial information. On the basis of what we have been shown, this project is, frankly, a total financial speculation. I do not have any difficulty with those who wish to engage in speculation— there may be some who speculate on the national lottery, the horses, the football pools or certain stocks and shares. It is one thing to have a speculation where only those who are making the speculation stand to lose, but in this project the losers would not be those who may choose to speculate in the shares of Central Railway, as they could limit their risk and speculate only to the extent that they were willing to lose the money that they advanced in buying equity; the real losers would be the people who were dragged into the project on the back of the speculation. People all the way from Rugby, through the midlands and around the home counties to west and south London, Surrey, Kent and on to the channel tunnel would lose— tens of thousands of people would be blighted. If this House gives the project assent, they will be blighted for years to come and their environment will be damaged.
I do not believe that there is any conceivable basis on which we can reasonably and responsibly approve a scheme when the uncertainty about its financial viability is almost total, and the only real certainty is the devastating environmental damage it would do the length and breadth of the scheme.

Ms Clare Short: It might help the House to know the views of the Labour Front Bench at this point in the debate, and I shall try to put them briefly as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
We are, like many hon. Members, strongly committed to the aim of getting more freight on to rail. We made this clear in our policy document "Consensus for Change" which was published recently, and I set out in more detail how we would set about achieving this in a speech to the rail freight conference on 5 June. I therefore approach this project with sympathy, but I am afraid my conclusion is that the proposal is unrealistic, is not economically viable, will not come to fruition and is causing blight and upset for no good purpose.
I spoke briefly on the telephone today to Andrew Gritten, the chair of Central Railway. He asked me to speak to Central Railway's financial adviser, John Cramer. He told me that he used to work for Goldman Sachs, and also used to be Minister for Transport in Illinois. He argued that to create a successful freight railway, one needs very large volumes, low costs and high frequencies. He believes that to achieve that, the freight railway needs control over its own infrastructure and to have dedicated facilities. He pleaded with me to allow the application to pass today so that it could go to the next stage for full consideration. I said to him— and I say to the House— that I am well aware that investment in new infrastructure causes blight and that that is sometimes necessary in the public interest to carry through major new infrastructure projects. But in this case, it seems clear to me that the whole project is unrealistic and not properly considered. It would therefore be wrong for the House to allow the problem of blight to continue.
Let me cite a few examples of the unrealistic nature of the proposal. It is a 180-mile line, 57 miles of which are to be reinstated on an old route. Near Rugby, incidentally, the old route goes through a new housing estate. It will then move on to an upgraded Chiltern line. The plan involves the compulsory purchase of 41 miles of the Chiltern line. But Railtrack says that it will not hand over ownership, and I understand that Central Railway has not made any approach— at least until May— to propose buying the lines.
In addition, Central Railway has said in its brief to hon. Members this week that work to upgrade the Chiltern line would not involve any widening or extra tracks. But today I was told that it would involve extra track. Yesterday, Adrian Shooter of the Chiltern line said that it would not be possible to integrate the proposed number of Central Railway trains with existing passenger services. He says that Central Railway has consistently refused to tell him how many trains it will run. He learnt only yesterday that it would be five to six per hour. It seems clear to me that not enough work has been done and not enough detail has been settled and the proposal to incorporate the Chiltern line means that it is not a dedicated freight railway, as is claimed.
On top of this, the proposed gauge— which is very high because the lorries are intended to roll on to the trains— will not be able to continue beyond Calais, because the gauge is smaller on the continent. That makes it a defective scheme in my view. But there is no provision for a terminal in France. Central Railway says that: the project will cost £ 2 billion to £ 3 billion— as we have heard— but Ove Arup says it could be twice as much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) referred to MDS Transmodal— a shipping and freight consultancy keen to get more freight on to rail. That company says that Central Railway has underestimated the cost of locomotives. The type of wagons that are

budgeted are not safety approved for the tunnel, and are unlikely to be in the future. In addition, estimates of revenue are unrealistic.
I could go on, and give more examples of this unrealistic nature of the project but I do not want to take up the time of the House. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) referred to the fact that those who are keen to see more freight on rail want attention to be drawn to the alternative plans— costing only £ 100 million— that would enable the west coast main line greatly to increase its freight capacity and remove the same traffic from the road as would the Central Railway plan. This scheme could be completed in two years. Central Railways' plan would take four years after the public inquiry had been completed and the funding found— if it could ever be found.
In contrasting these schemes, I would like to say in passing that this is an example of the deeply unsatisfactory rail system that the Government's privatisation has given us. [HON. MEMBERS: "She's spoilt it."] It does not spoil anything— it is true and the Secretary of State should listen. The privatised railway is so fragmented that there is no strategic centre to the system that is capable of judging which freight scheme best serves the public interest and ensures that that is carried through. I set out in a recent speech to the Adam Smith Institute— Conservative Members may wish to note that— how Labour will ensure that such a strategic centre is established. It is a failure of the privatised network that we are having this mess today when a cheaper and better scheme is available, and the Government are not getting behind the scheme that would best serve the public interest.
My conclusion is that the most persuasive case for passing the application tonight is that it needs much more development and that its passage would allow detailed consideration to take place. However, as the Minister said, if the House passed the proposal, it would be like a recommendation to the planning inquiry from the House. No responsible Member could possibly recommend it and no responsible Government could be neutral about such an unsatisfactory scheme. The proposal is before the House and that requires us to take a view. The project is well intentioned but unrealistic. It would be wrong for the House to allow large numbers of people along the route to continue to suffer blight. I advise that we should vote to refuse the application.

Mr. James Pawsey: I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), but I am in substantial agreement with her comments on the great central line. Certain of her other comments passed me by but the first section of her speech was admirable. I especially liked her reference to Rugby and its housing estate. What she said about Rugby could be echoed for every constituency on the line.
This is the first time that the Transport and Works Act has been used since it was enacted in 1992. The subject for that unique occasion is the application by Central Railway plc to restore a major section of the old great central line. I suspect that the way in which the Act operates will lead the House to amend it in the fullness of time but that is not a matter for tonight.
It is intended that the reopened line will cater principally for freight and carry the lorry trailer and the tractor unit on flat-bed rail trucks. The House will


appreciate that the carrying of the tractor unit in addition to the load is not an efficient way to transport freight. The line has been disused for some 30 years. In some parts, it has been become a nature reserve and a public amenity. In others, factories and housing estates have been built over its site. Were the reopening to go forward, enormous environmental damage would occur.
Many houses have been built and bought in the knowledge that a disused railway line is close by and while Central Railway claims that it has a property protection scheme, it admits that it has no money to acquire properties or to meet any statutory blight notices. That was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in his powerful speech. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of homes and businesses face a future that at best might be described as uncertain.
It is significant that the development is opposed by groups ranging from statutory bodies such as county, district and parish councils to the National Farmers Union and various wildlife trusts. All come together in opposition to this proposal. One of the reasons for the breadth of opposition is the existence of a viable alternative. That point was made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), by my hon. Friend the Minister during his strong speech and by the hon. Member for Ladywood.
The alternative is the piggyback consortium, which involves lorry semi-trailers being carried piggyback on rail wagons on the existing west coast main line. I have correspondence from the consortium dated 8 July that confirms that the first wagons will be launched in the United Kingdom next month, when a revenue service between London and Glasgow using low-height trailers will commence. The consortium is working with Railtrack to upgrade existing lines from Glasgow to the channel tunnel to enable standard 4 m high lorry semi-trailers to be carried.
It is estimated that the infrastructure work may take two years and cost about £ 100 million. That is not an insignificant sum but it pales into insignificance when compared with the costs quoted by Central Railway, which optimistically says that the cost will be about £ 3 billion. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh [HON. MEMBERS: "Streatham."] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. As he said, consultants Ove Arup have issued a report that puts the cost substantially higher than that currently quoted by Central Railway.
Central Railway has not developed an environmentally sensitive scheme. Its environmental statement does not identify significant effects or specify plans to mitigate the undoubted noise and nuisance. Substantial doubts exist that adequate landscaping, noise abatement and habitat protection have, or can be, provided.
This is one of those rare occasions in the life of the House when there is general agreement between the three major parties. It is significant that the Labour and Liberal parties have come out strongly in opposition to the development. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government are, and must be, strictly impartial because of their quasi-judicial role. However, Back Benchers do not have to be impartial. One has only to look around the Chamber to see the growing opposition to this

crack-brained scheme and the number of Conservative Members who will oppose it in the Lobby tonight. There is no substantial demand for the reopening of the great central railway line outside the financial interests of the sponsors.
Freight can be taken off the roads and the environment can be protected by using the existing west coast main line and the piggyback consortium. It is worth recording that, unlike the Central Railway, the piggyback consortium is supported by local authorities, Eurotunnel, the Freight Transport Association, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, P and O Ferrymasters, PowerGen Property, Rail Freight Distribution, Railtrack and SNCF. Many other major companies are associated with the consortium but a full roll-call would take up too much of the House's time.
I urge the House to reject the application because it is as unnecessary as it is unwanted. It is disruptive, damaging and will cause enormous worry and distress to substantial numbers of the people who we are elected to defend. I intend to divide the House and urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote no tonight.

Mr. David Chidgey: It is rare that we have a free vote on an issue of national importance. Even if it is at the 11th hour of our last day, it is gratifying that so many hon. Members are present and clearly intent on voting. I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members want to speak so I will not rehearse the well-established Liberal Democrat transport policies. I assume that hon. Members can take them as read, whether they agree with them or not. I shall concentrate on Central Railway.
Over the past few weeks, many hon. Members will have been lobbied by the company, which emphasised that Central Railway's private initiative and financial commitment would be at risk if Parliament does not allow the scheme to progress to the next stage. Although my party welcomes private and public sector financing partnerships in our transport infrastructure, provided that it accords with transport strategy, it is odd that Central Railway should appeal to our good nature. The risks are well known. The Transport and Works Act 1992 makes clear the requirements that promoters must meet if they are to take a project forward. Organisations that subscribe to market forces should be happy to allow that procedure, and not complain if the result does not go their way.
The report by Ove Arup, consulting engineers of international reputation and integrity, was independent and not in support of any particular group. The whole point of engineering consultants is that they offer professional and independent views, of which we should take serious note.
The project documentation has been well described. I invite hon. Members to compare that documentation, or the lack of it, with the amount of information that was presented to the House when it reviewed the progress of the channel tunnel rail link and the amount of work that went into establishing the viability of that scheme.
I want to address the three key issues of the scheme's impact on the environment, its impact on the democratic process and its synergy with the national transport strategy. We are all in favour of switching as much freight as possible from road to rail, and my party has set a target


of 10 per cent. over a reasonable period. However, that objective is not itself an argument for building a 208 km railway, particularly when the existing rail network is capacity-hungry for freight. We are aware of the damage and uproar caused by recent new motorway construction. Hon. Members will recall the incidents at Twyford Down when the M3 was completed— I live in that constituency, so I remember them well. Railway construction is no less environmentally damaging and is arguably more so. The gradients that must be achieved for a railway are less than for a motorway, so require deeper cuttings and higher embankments— not to mention the 24 km super-diameter tunnelling that will be required. One returns to the argument that we already have an existing rail network crying out for investment.
The Minister said that 14,000 letters of objection have been received, and 50,000 people have signed a petition against the project. The reason for that controversy is that planning officers and locally elected councillors have been shut out of the process and starved of information. It is well established that Central Railway has continually sought to limit information by seeking waivers against the requirements of the 1992 Act, which has undermined the democratic checks and balances that are well established in local and county councils.
If the House approved the order and outline planning permission were subsequently granted, the public inquiry would be concerned not with whether the project should proceed but with when, how and where. The House would remove at one stroke the basis of local democracy, the planning process and local accountability. Local plans painstakingly developed over decades by district councils to serve their communities would be thrown aside. Dozens of communities would be shattered by blight for many years. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) pointed out that housing estates would be cut through, parks destroyed, industrial estates torn down and immense traffic problems created as side roads were used for access.
Of course there is an urgent need to attract freight from the roads to rail. There has been an appalling decline in rail freight volume in recent years, and the state of the west coast main line is a classic example of lack of investment and poor maintenance leading to extensive speed restrictions and disrupted timetables. Nevertheless, the west coast main line is the most extensive and complex link in the national network. It is the major artery connecting the heart of the west midlands and our manufacturing base with the rest of Europe. The proposals of the piggyback consortium show how quickly an essential freight service could be provided. It would use the channel tunnel and connect directly with the continental rail network, without any necessity for a change of gauge or Central Railway's super-gauge, which cannot connect with the mainland European network.
For a fraction of the cost of the Central Railway scheme, the west coast main line can and must be upgraded as an essential part of our national rail strategy. That can be achieved with minimal disruption, to meet the demand for rail freight that can be created if Railtrack is required by the rail regulator to provide cheap, efficient and attractive rail access to freight operators.
It would be wrong for Parliament to act as a planning supremo in granting or making way for an order that would overturn local plans, ignore the needs and wishes of local communities, and circumvent local democracy. It

would be wrong to grant or assist an order to permit a massive construction that would cause untold environmental damage and make Twyford Down look like a side road closure order. It would be wrong to grant an order for a hugely expensive and disruptive scheme while the west coast main line remains neglected, underfunded and underused. Parliament should direct its energies at forcing rapid improvement to our existing rail network as its highest priority. I hope that the House will join me in voting against the order.

Sir Keith Speed: I will not reiterate the comments by hon. Members in all parts of the House because time is short. I quarrel slightly with my hon. Friend the Minister when he says that consultation has taken place with many local authorities. I am informed by Kent county council and Ashford borough council that consultation consisted of encounters with two or three people who were unwilling or unable to answer any questions of consequence. Fortunately, we have good officers in both authorities and they were able to interpret the little information that was provided and the scheme's likely effect on their communities— which would be extremely bad.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and I have lived for eight years under the blight of the channel tunnel rail link. First there were four routes, then two and then two other routes. That created enormous misery for people who had invested their life savings in houses but who had to move because of their work or for financial reasons, having been caught in negative equity. They were confronted by an apparently implacable bureaucracy. The Central Railway scheme has already produced several months of blight. The blight did not start on 20 May, when the order was first laid. It has long been evident in my constituency and, I suspect, in many others. I hope that the House will sound a resounding death knell tonight on this ill-considered project, so that blight will be truly and properly ended.
My hon. Friend the Minister read out a statement from the Central Railway consortium that by and large there would be little disruption to existing services. That is nonsense. It is nonsense for the Chiltern line. My hon. Friend has not mentioned, but I am going to, the international station at Ashford. I had the great honour of inaugurating that new service on 8 January this year. Ashford is a pretty narrow gap. We have the main lines from Maidstone and the main lines from Tonbridge. We have lines going off to Canterbury, Folkestone and Hastings and in addition we shall have the new channel tunnel rail link going through Ashford.
If the Central Railway line project goes through, it will be much bigger than the others. No one has yet mentioned the vertical deviation of plus or minus 10 m. Central Railway is so precise that we are talking about 33 ft up or down. How can one interpret things like that on a map, for heaven's sake?
The international station at Ashford, which has been open for only two months, will be largely demolished and, we hope, rebuilt— we do not know how— to enable the line to go through. The station already has 7,000 people a week going through it and is fast expanding. It is doing a good job not only for Ashford but for a swathe of counties and constituencies from Essex to Bristol. It will


be completely disrupted. No wonder that the channel tunnel rail link people, Eurostar and all the rest feel that the Central Railway line will be the death knell for any stations on the Eurostar route outside London.
I have said enough to show that, even in my part of the world, there are problems. There will be six lines going down from Ashford to Folkestone. The project will involve the demolition of a mediaeval church and a village school. I agree that if the line is built it will cost £ 6 billion-plus, not £ 3 billion, but let us also consider the cost to local authorities. If there is a series of local planning inquiries, officers of district councils, parish councils, borough councils and county councils will have to do a great deal of work to make sense of the nonsensical maps with which they are working so far. Time for officers is money. Why should the taxpayer, either local or national, pay a penny more for this ill-gotten scheme? It must be killed and killed now.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I speak on behalf of many concerned constituents, to inform the House that Croydon says no to Central Railway. The people of Croydon say no to the scheme, for environmental, social and economic reasons, not least in terms of jobs. It has been estimated that in Croydon there would be a direct loss of 62 residential properties, many in Croydon, North-West. There would also be a direct loss of 40 commercial premises, which currently support about 580 jobs. There would be loss of access to premises, which support a further 200 jobs. There would also be significant effects on the environment and ecology of the area, including the felling of up to 500 mature trees. There would be other impacts on nature and the ecology.
Many people are worried about the loss of garden space. I understand that. More than 600 residential properties in Croydon would lose garden space. For about 110 properties, the loss would be so significant that the garden space left would be below council standards— a minimum of 8 m in length for a back garden. There would be increases in noise levels.
I have received more letters— well over 150— on this matter than on any single issue since I became a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Tim Smith: I have had a thousand.

Mr. Wicks: The party of inflation will speak for itself later. I have received more than 150 letters— not petitions or postcards, but handwritten letters from concerned groups. I pay tribute to the community groups in my borough and elsewhere, which have led the fight against the scheme. I pay tribute in particular to Vera Hunter and Charmienne Bold— two of our key local activists.
One pensioner from Norbury who wrote to me said in her letter that her husband had recently had a stroke and was now wheelchair-bound. She said that he did not need the added stress of their house being blighted by Central Railway. Another pensioner couple in Norbury said that they had spent all their savings on a house to make it comfortable for their old age, and they now feared that it would be uninhabitable, because of pollution.
Another constituent from Norbury said:
If Central Railway have their way it will be sheer hell. There will be more filth and many other disadvantages.
Another constituent from Thornton Heath said:
The noise coming from these trains… would be unbearable.
Another talked about her garden and said, perfectly reasonably, that her 81-year-old mother
should be able to tend the whole garden she has lived with for over 50 years without any interference.
Another constituent from Croydon said:
I bought my house 2 years ago and have spent thousands of pounds renovating it to make it comfortable and also to increase its value. I have no intention of being driven out by the greed of a few people in high places.
I could quote from many other letters, but both Opposition and Conservative Members wish to speak.
Central Railway should receive a gold medal in any Olympics for arrogance, and at least a silver medal for insensitivity. Despite inadequate funding and the fact that it is a toytown, tinpot company, it has sought the time of Parliament to pursue plans that have caused dismay and despair, not least to elderly people. I have had people literally in tears in my constituency about the human impact of the project line. I am angry on their behalf, as are other hon. Members, that they have been caused so much despair, dismay and sadness, not least by the arrogant lack of consultation and the bullying approach of Central Railway.
To my surprise, I saw in a local newspaper an article with the headline, "Railway expects yes vote". The article said:
Central Railway says it is pleasantly surprised at the number of objections to its freight scheme through Croydon— 12,000.
Why is it pleasantly surprised? It is because, the company says,
It amounts to little more than 40 objections per kilometre. For a major scheme of this character one could expect a figure which would run into hundreds per kilometre.
Such is the statistical fantasy land of that toytown company. These are people who would have described Chernobyl as a small bang.
The people of my constituency humbly hope that the House of Commons will represent them today. I believe that we shall. They feel that they are up against a big brother— a big company— but they also know that Parliament means something in our democracy. Very soon we shall show that we speak on behalf of our people by voting resoundingly, decisively and clearly no.

Mr. George Walden: After listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I do not wish to try their patience by trying to demolish the already demolished, but I reflect on behalf of my constituents that in the past two or three years they have been subject to two massive infrastructure proposals. The first was the east-west route, which runs plumb across my constituency, and the second is the Central Railway project, which runs across it from north to south. If the two projects go through, my constituency will look like a hot-cross bun.
All that my constituency wants from my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads is a very small and inexpensive bypass at Tingewick, with which I have bored


my hon. Friend on many occasions. Therefore, it is ironic that, instead of that much-needed bypass— people walk in danger of their lives every day— we are presented with two enormous schemes that would dissect the constituency and cause massive environmental problems, among other things.
I shall speak literally for a matter of minutes. Apart from stressing the environmental problems, particularly for Haddenham, the village that would be most damaged if the line was built, I should like to emphasise that there is an air of unreality about these proceedings, not only because there is such a measure of agreement across the House, but because we are discussing, seriously as we must, the whole spatchcocked idea in the first place. This is the type of plan that gives private enterprise a bad name, because it has a strong flavour of speculation. I have not looked up the south sea bubble debate, but no doubt we could have cribbed some terminology from there, had we tried.
I could go on for hours emphasising the pain that this has caused many people in my constituency, but I know that similar pain has been caused to other hon. Members' constituents, so I shall finish with the following thought. I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister imply that he would study the procedure under which massive planning applications can be made and cause massive disruption and— as this one has done— massive cost to the Government, when they are merely confetti and not worth the paper on which they are submitted.

Mr. Tom Cox: There have been some excellent speeches in the debate, which have shown the strength of feeling of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister— I do not criticise him for it— illustrated the genuine anxieties that he and his Department have, not only about the possible funding, but about the overwhelming opposition that has been expressed.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), in a telling speech, ripped apart the argument that has been presented. I represent a constituency in the London borough of Wandsworth. The borough has spent an enormous amount of time and money considering the proposals, and has made countless objections to them.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made certain statements on the documents that he has. I also have one, which I am sure that other hon. Members have, headed:
Central Railway's Response to Representation and Objections".
It is lies or misinterpretation of what we know has been happening in the constituencies that we represent.
One of the points that the document makes about objections by local authorities is that most of the authorities object to the scheme on the basis that there has been insufficient consultation with them and that the information provided with the application is inadequate; how true. We in Wandsworth, and many of my constituents who are affected, have been trying and trying to find out what the proposals really mean, without great success.
On the third page of the document, there is the following statement:
 "Under this scheme homeowners are granted an option to sell their homes to the Company at a fixed price.

Many hon. Members have been through all this before on other proposals, when at the end of the day people whose homes were being compulsorily purchased have had very little say in trying to get what they rightly believed to be the value of their property. 
The document next discusses the environmental impact.
It says:
The Company's investigations indicate that the operation of the railway will not create unacceptable increases in noise or vibration".
The London borough of Wandsworth, which has done extensive work on that, says clearly, in documents that have been circulated to the three Members for the borough, that that is totally untrue.
My final point is about disruption during construction.
The document says:
The project has been designed to minimise disruption during construction but some disruption is inevitable.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that there will be seven-day working on much of the project. Do we not have an obligation, not only to look after the blight problem for our constituents, but to look after the general environment in which they live? The hon. Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) spoke of the problems that his constituency has had to suffer as a result of the cross-channel developments.
Very shortly, we shall have the opportunity to vote the order down, and I hope that we shall do so overwhelmingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) outlined—

Mr. Bill Olner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise the House as to whether any hon. Member will speak for the scheme tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am
afraid that I cannot anticipate what hon. Members might wish to say.

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) makes an important point. We shall watch closely how many hon. Members go into the Aye Lobby tonight, and I do not think that we or the Tellers shall spend much time counting them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood spoke about the time of the overall development. If we have a public inquiry, which will take two years or more, and then the development work, the entire process might take five or six years. None of us has a right to be in the House tonight thinking about our constituents and saying, "Perhaps they will not like it, but we must live with it." I am sure that all of us here tonight who oppose the scheme want to see it defeated in the House. In six months' or a year's time, we shall not be faced with the prospect of the scheme being brought back because it has been changed in some way, if we defeat it tonight in its entirety.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the strong objections that have been made to the proposal. I am keen for freight to move from road to rail, as I believe the House and the country are, but not in this way. In my constituency, there would be enormous damage to people in their homes, in that they would have trains thundering


past close by, day and night, in a way that would damage unacceptably their health and morale and their way of life, beyond repair. In Greenford, Northolt and especially Perivale, there would be destruction of habitats, in addition to the damage to people in their homes.

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend realise that there could be not only the five to six trains an hour that Central Railway has mentioned, but as many as 10 trains an hour, if third-party operators are also permitted to use the line?

Mr. Greenway: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it, because it emphasised his opposition to this unwanted, unsatisfactory development.
Many hon. Members want to speak. We all have a duty to represent our constituents' concerns. My constituents expressed their views to me by the thousand, in the form of a petition. Everyone opposed the scheme; no one wrote to me to say that they wanted it. I wish that people could have been informed of their opportunity to write with their objections by 1 July, long before they were given that information. In my constituency, people did not know that they could write and object to the scheme until the middle of June, leaving them with a fortnight. That is unsatisfactory.
The scheme is unsatisfactory in every way. It has been unsatisfactorily presented and mounted, and it has been unsatisfactorily handled throughout the short consultation stage. It should be thrown out unanimously.

Mr. Clive Soley: I have received the same petition and complaints as many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I want to add to the debate, because there is no point in repeating much of what has been said, simply repeating what many of our constituents are saying.
This application shows the need to review the Transport and Works Act 1992. It is wrong that a company without any convincing financial ability can propose a scheme by drawing a line on the map without adequate consultation with any of the local authorities concerned, let alone other people, and put that scheme in such a way that it blights people's homes and businesses. In doing so, it will make many people lose money on their homes.
This is no way to plan a major infrastructure scheme. No attention has been paid to the height of bridges or to the need to deal with the infrastructure underneath the roads that the railway will cross. A proposal of this nature will put at risk electricity cables and gas and water mains. The Government cannot justify a system in which a minor company makes proposals without adequate thought and planning, and then expects to get it through on the ground that it can spell out the detail later once Parliament has approved it.
I appeal to the Minister to learn from this lesson. The Act must be amended to ensure that a company—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents).

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 172.

Division No. 213]
[8.50 pm


AYES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Deva, Nirj Joseph



French, Douglas



Gill, Christopher
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Robert Hughes.


Porter, David (Waveney)





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Alexander, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alton, David
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Amess, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gunnell, John


Austin-Walker, John
Hall, Mike


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hanley, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnes, Harry
Hawkins, Nick


Bayley, Hugh
Hawksley, Warren


Beith, A J
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bendall, Vivian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Benton, Joe
Howard, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hoyle, Doug


Body, Sir Richard
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Booth, Hartley
Hutton, John


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Khabra, Piara S


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkwood, Archy


Burden, Richard
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butler, Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Byers, Stephen
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Callaghan, Jim
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Lidington, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livingstone, Ken


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Chidgey, David
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Chisholm, Malcolm
MacGregor, John


Church, Ms Judith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacShane, Denis


Coffey, Ms Ann
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Congdon, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Conway, Derek
Marland, Paul


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Martlew, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Couchman, James
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Mellor, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Dicks, Terry
Mills, Iain


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dowd, Jim
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mullin, Chris


Dunn, Bob
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Eagle, Ms Angela
Norris, Steve


Elletson, Harold
Olner, Bill


Faulds, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paice, James


Flynn, Paul
Pawsey, James


Foulkes, George
Pearson, Ian


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Pike, Peter L


Gardiner, Sir George
Pope, Greg


George, Bruce
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Gerrard, Neil
Primarolo, Ms Dawn






Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tyler, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shephard, Gillian
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wareing, Robert N


Short, Ms Clare
Wells, Bowen


Skinner, Dennis
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Soley, Clive
Wilkinson, John


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Speed, Sir Keith
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spellar, John
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Bill Etherington.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE AND SERVICES

Ordered,

That Mr. Greg Knight be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr. Andrew Mackay be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Ottaway.]

PETITIONS

Standard Spending Assessment (North Lincolnshire)

9 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of the people of North Lincolnshire regarding the way in which the standard spending assessment is calculated. The campaign has been organised by the local newspaper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph. It is supported by the leader of the North Lincolnshire council and by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), whose constituency covers part of the new unitary authority.
The standard spending assessment calculation led to a council tax increase of 28 per cent.in April this year. We believe that that is an unfair, and a very heavy burden on the people of that area. It has also caused dramatic cuts in services and created enormous problems for the council. The petition reads as follows:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of the people of North Lincolnshire declares that the Standard Spending Assessment that dictates the level of the North Lincolnshire Council Tax is unfair, unreasonable and does not take into account the needs of the area, recognise the balance of its urban and rural nature, and has resulted in an excessive increase in Council Tax.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons carries out an urgent review of the basis of the Standard Spending Assessment.
That issue must be examined urgently— not just in the case of North Lincolnshire but in relation to councils the length and breadth of this country. It is quite clear that there is something seriously wrong with the calculation, and it must be rectified as soon as possible.

To lie upon the Table.

North Western Traffic Area Office, Manchester

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right to petition the House of Commons is a very important one which is not lightly abandoned by anyone. Therefore, I am delighted to present to the House tonight a petition on behalf of a small group of important people who run the north western traffic area office in Manchester.
Those hon. Members who know the transport industry know that traffic commissioners are responsible for maintaining and enforcing the laws that keep our constituents safe in relation to public service vehicles, buses and heavy lorries. They have now been told that they are to lose their jobs and that the work is to go elsewhere.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of Manchester and elsewhere sheweth
that we wish to register strong protest at the Government's proposal to close the North Western Traffic Area Office in Manchester and thereby reduce the levels of vehicle and traffic enforcement in the North West and threaten the employment of some sixty staff.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do not proceed with this proposal.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Security (Middle East)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a great pleasure and privilege to initiate this Adjournment debate on the important subject of peace prospects in the middle east. I am conscious of the fact that, although the hour is early, at the end of this short debate the House will be going into a long summer recess, when no doubt you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members will be able to spend more time with constituents.
Conscious as I am of the fact that, earlier this evening, the House debated the third report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on the conduct of hon. Members, I am pleased to report that I have no interest to declare, other than an interest in the subject, but it is a sad reflection on public life in the United Kingdom that those of us who have business interests predating our membership of the House and who are able to draw on experiences in business, socially and otherwise, have felt constrained, as I have in the past four years, from speaking in such debates in recent times. On this important subject, however, it is useful perhaps to put down one or two markers, and I hope to play some small part in furthering the peace process.
The middle east is vital to the interests of the industrialised world, because of its strategic location and unparalleled wealth. Today, the region's future is in the balance. The choice is either for its political elites to continue to initiate constructive dialogue with each other and to marginalise the extremists, or to appease the hardliners, whose best interests are served by the continuing mistrust and confrontation of the past and the failures of the peace process.
Even in Israel, enormous discretion is given to its elite to make public policy. Despite such leeway, trust can be squandered if officials are seen as not protecting their country's national security interest. An aide to Prime Minister Rabin once coined a succinct motto for him:
If you want to make drastic concessions on peace, you must show the public you can take drastic measures for security".
Prime Minister Rabin declared that Israel would pursue peace as if there were no terrorism, and fight terrorism as if there were no peace process. There is much of such a policy in Israel's new leader. Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu possesses both the credibility with the Israelis and the personal will to make territorial concessions when he is convinced that his state's security is not at stake. Reaching agreement will prove a matter more of timing than anything else.

Mr. John Marshall: May I thank my hon. Friend for not prejudging the Israeli Prime Minister, as so much of the world press did? Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson of history is that leaders of the right are often better able to make peace than leaders of the left? After all, it was Prime Minister Begin who signed the Camp David accord, and President Nixon was able to warm up relations with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Banks: I was pleased to have the opportunity to give way to my hon. Friend, and I agree with the broad thrust of his remarks. I am certainly one of the last people who would wish to make presumptions about the actions of the Prime Minister of Israel in the days and months ahead.
Prime Minister Netanyahu made an eloquent and articulate speech to the United States Congress earlier this month. I believe that that speech will have allayed the scepticism and consternation felt by a number of Arab leaders following the Israeli elections in May. I hope that it will have contributed towards the gradual expansion of the circle of peace.
The clearing of the air has continued with Arab leaders— most recently with President Mubarak in Cairo on 17 July, and with the Israeli Foreign Minister's visit with President Arafat earlier this week. The promise to allow 10,000 Palestinian workers to enter Israel, despite the existent threat from Muslim militant terrorists in the west bank and Gaza strip, is a welcome sign of Israeli intentions.
To the ordinary Palestinian in the territories, the initiation of constructive dialogue and the marginalisation of the extremists means little. Tangible evidence of the fruits of peace must pervade everyday life— hence the importance of economic development and, in Secretary of State Warren Christopher's words
not simply to give peace a chance, but to ensure that it will not fail".
Just as the Israeli Government must carry their people with them in the search for peace, so too must the Palestinian authority. Marginalising extremists is made easier by improvements in living standards under a responsible leadership.
The United States and Russian co-sponsored international donors conference in Washington in 1993, the Israel-Palestinian Liberation Organisation economic agreement in Paris in 1994, the work of the ad hoc liaison committee on Palestinian assistance and the conference on assistance to the Palestinians convened earlier this year, have all played their part in initiating such an improvement.
All five of the Madrid multilateral working groups have made significant progress via concrete projects that bear significantly on the long-term peace, stability and prosperity of the region, particularly the work of the regional economic development working group, chaired by the European Union, and the refugee working group, chaired by Canada. Their activities are also fostering new bilateral and private sector initiatives throughout the region.
One of the more significant of those involves the middle east/north Africa economic summits that reached agreement in Amman last year on, among other things, the establishment of a bank for economic co-operation and development in the middle east and north Africa, the establishment of the Regional Business Council, and the formal inauguration of the economic summit executive secretariat.
As for ourselves in the United Kingdom, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will reaffirm the Government's commitment to helping the Palestinian territories through the constructive, helpful methods that have been adopted so far, bilaterally, through the United


Nations, and via the European Union. I know that this country's aid has reached £ 82 million in the three years up to 1996–97, and the European Union's aid of £ 400 million over five years— our share being one sixth— is welcome.
I am particularly keen on the fostering and encouragement of private enterprise in the territories, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did much to encourage that end during his visit to the Gaza strip last year. If ordinary Palestinians are able to see an improvement in their living standards in trade, public health, sewerage, finance and administration, it spells trouble for the extremists and terrorists and their recruitment teams.
We already co-operate with both Israel and the Palestinian authority on training for the Palestinian police force, with, for example, the help of a team from the Scottish police training college. I hope that we shall continue to provide such obviously practical and beneficial assistance in the future.
Sometimes we talk about the inner circle of states surrounding Israel and about their importance. Some of the most important of those, of course, are Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian territories. Negotiations between Israel and Syria entered a new phase in 1995, although talks have stalled in the aftermath of terrorist incidents in Israel and the election of the new Israeli Government. However, I believe that the will to reach agreement exists on both sides.
Peace with Syria would almost certainly mean that Israel could have peace with, I hope, all Arab countries, barring one or two indefatigable holdouts such as Libya and Iraq. The Israel-Syrian tract is doubly important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in a radio interview this April, when he said:
We know that Syria has enormous influence in Lebanon … It is quite clear that the two are quite intimately linked.
What is Syria to gain in the peace process? I believe that the prospect of getting back Golan is of huge political importance. Possibly Syria could gain Israel's consent to its continued overlordship of Lebanon, and it could reasonably expect to be removed from the United States's list of state-sponsored terrorism. If Syria, with its influence over dissident groups, felt able to sign on the dotted line by joining the multilateral talks, for example, I believe that Arab rulers everywhere in the Gulf and in north Africa would feel that they had nothing to fear from doing the same.
Just as the Palestinian deal is the key to a new economic order, so the Syrian deal is the key to a comprehensive peace with the wider Arab world. Corning down from Golan is the key, and— despite the utterances of Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Netanyahu— I believe that the Israeli elite understands that, too, provided that security can be guaranteed.
In the meantime, it is only by marginalising supporters of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah that leaders committed to peace will continue to make progress in the years ahead. International pariahs— such as Libya and, especially, Iran— do most to encourage terrorism, which can, and sometimes does, destabilise other countries in the region. I am particularly concerned about the most recent murderous examples of that fact, in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
The recent European Union agreement on a new extradition convention between member states is a very constructive follow-up to the Prime Minister's statements at the middle east summit in March.
I do not believe that we should tolerate the activities of people such as Dr. Al-Masari, who exploit their roles as asylum seekers to diffuse their evil and malignant opinions, to the detriment of the builders of peace everywhere. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue at the summit.
In view of the significant threat posed by a spiralling arms race and by state-sponsored terrorism, it is imperative that the arms control and regional security working group, chaired by the United States and Russia, reaches substantive agreements, such as that on establishing regional security centres. However, given that the arms procurement policies of countries such as Iran and Libya— which by choice are not involved in peace negotiations— have as much bearing on future security as countries that are involved in the negotiations, any hope of achieving arms control is a dim one.
Iran is still viewed by the United Arab Emirates, for example, as the major threat to security in the region, not least because of the clearly expressed ambitions of its leaders to play the dominant role in regional security. The dispute over Gulf islands, such as Abu Musa, symbolises the confrontation. Unsurprisingly, as Iran refuses arbitration, international diplomacy has been blocked in the matter.
Iran has consistently opposed the Arab-Israel peace process, not only diplomatically but by sponsoring terrorism aimed at destabilising the mutual trust carefully nurtured between Israel and several Arab states since 1991. Moreover, western intelligence has documented reports of Iranian meddling, during this decade, in the internal affairs of Lebanon and of Algeria, and it seems clear that that meddling is spreading to other countries as well— even to the extent of attempting to divide the UAE, for example, by practising direct diplomacy with the individual Emirates rather than through the federal authority.
Iran has proved antagonistic to security in the region. Its programme of weapons acquisition— including, as many fear, efforts to procure nuclear weapons— the expansion of chemical and biological weapons capabilities, the acquisition of more sophisticated missiles and the purchase of three modern diesel-powered submarines from Moscow are all further proof of Iran's aspiration to regional hegemony. Iran is currently experiencing high unemployment and inflation, shortages of consumer goods and currency devaluations, but, despite that, it is spending vast sums on modern military technology.
The view in Abu Dhabi towards security in the region has been one of common sense. It has weighed in with third parties to encourage them to desist from supplying weapons of mass destruction, dual-use high technology and new credits to terrorist regimes, including Iran.
The United Kingdom has been the UAE's staunchest ally since independence in 1971. As a frequent visitor and secretary of the Anglo-UAE parliamentary group, it would be remiss of me not to say that I firmly believe in the successful conclusion of a defence co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom and the UAE, especially as a means of providing a framework for future bilateral defence collaboration.
Although I appreciate that the content of negotiations is confidential and most certainly very delicate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure me and the House that the Government are doing their utmost to build on our long-standing friendship which has existed since 1971.
As for international trade, with a total population of some 359 million, the countries of north Africa and the middle east had a combined gross domestic product of some £ 601 billion in 1993, and imported £ 135 billion-worth of goods. The region remains one of enormous importance for British trade. Many businesses in my constituency export to the middle east, and I know that trade with the region is also important for the constituencies of other hon. Members. It is important to remember that 6 per cent. of exports worldwide are with the region, and that it shows a balance of trade of 2:1 in the UK's favour.
The Gulf also continues to offer enormous prospects in all sectors, and there are also new opportunities in Israel, the territories and Jordan arising from the peace process. Lebanon and Syria may also benefit once there is progress on the Syrian track. In the meantime, reconstruction in Lebanon and the liberalisation of the Syrian economy mean that markets are worthy of attention in their own right. I am pleased to learn that British companies are getting in there and trying to win orders. I trust that they will continue to receive the support of our posts abroad and of Ministers at home, and of Ministers when they travel.
Security in the middle east is still far away. Continuing and regular threats to long-term security are posed by extremism and terrorism throughout the region. I hope that the day will come when all disputes in the middle east can be settled in the peaceful and brotherly manner which I like to think we are seeing in the border dispute between Bahrain and Qatar, which is being brokered by the Saudi Arabians.
It has been well said that it is easier to make war than peace. It will take concerted international leadership and, of course, the will of the people themselves to ensure that peace and its dividends remain the only viable future option. I know that my right hon. Friend is playing his part, on behalf of the Government, in providing our share of that leadership. He has my full support in that task.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for raising this important topic. He touched on many issues and perhaps I can put some of his remarks into a wider context.
As my hon. Friend said, this is the final debate of the current Session. It is appropriate that an area as important as the middle east should be the subject of that debate. It is also the third Adjournment debate to which I have replied today and I am pleased that this hat trick should be recorded on such a subject.
It is vital to fundamental British interests that there should be peace and tranquillity in the middle east, not merely because, as a permanent member of the Security Council, our aim is to promote stability throughout the world. In the middle east that concern is also linked to

some long-standing friendships. Our profound economic and commercial interests and the safety of tens of thousands of British expatriates are forefront in our minds. So my honourable Friend should not be surprised if we accord a high priority to our interest in regional security. We showed in the Gulf war how far we were prepared to go in opposing threats to that interest and attacks on our friends.
The middle east peace process is a linchpin of our regional security policy. Many recent statements have confirmed our strong interest in the search for a comprehensive regional peace settlement. They include my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech to the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians on 23 May and, more recently, the G7 declaration at Lyons and the European Union's Florence declaration. It is now most important that the agreements that have been made are implemented by all parties. For the Israelis, that means in the first instance the commitment to deploy from Hebron.
The other immediate imperatives are relaxations of the closures of the West Bank and Gaza and the resumption of high-level contacts between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I welcome the meeting that has taken place between Foreign Minister Levy and President Arafat. I have every confidence that Israel— with its new Government— and the Arab world will work for peace. That is vital to us all. As my hon. Friend said, the new Israeli Government must be given time to formulate their policies.
We recognise that security is a vital priority for Israel. We are working hard— in counter-terrorism, for example— to ensure that security and the peace process are seen as inter-related. Ultimately, the only answer to the problem of security is a comprehensive and lasting settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours, based on the principle of land for peace, which respects the rights of all.
The principle of land for peace was put forward in United Nations Security Council resolution 242, back in 1967. It was the basis for the Madrid process, which began in 1991, and for the Oslo talks which resulted in the declaration of principles between Israel and the PLO, signed in 1993. Britain gave consistent and full support to both of those declarations. The declaration of principles has led to the signing of the Gaza-Jericho agreement in 1994, and most recently in September last year of the interim agreement.
Not only has Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the PLO, renounced violence, but he has been instrumental in the important decision of the Palestine National Council of 24 April 1996 to amend the Palestinian Covenant so that it no longer denies the right of Israel to exist.
We shall have a major role to play in helping to maintain the momentum of the peace process. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 15 July to the General Affairs Council in Brussels, we must not allow the peace process to slip between the fingers of the world, like sand, and be lost. As I have said already, that cannot be allowed to happen.
An important main part of our support for the peace process is our economic assistance to the Palestinian people.

Mr. John Marshall: In the 62 minutes available to my right hon. Friend, will he talk briefly about the fate of the missing in action Israeli soldiers and airmen such as Ron Arad and Zachary Baumel? He will know that the remains of two Israeli MIAs were returned recently. May we have an assurance that the British Government will continue to press at every opportunity in an attempt to ensure that the fate of the other MIAs is determined very quickly?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can give him that assurance. When I was in Israel in January, I raised the subject of the six persons missing in action not only, of course, with Israelis but with President Arafat himself. We discussed the issues in great depth and I believe that Yasser Arafat wants a resolution of the matter as much as anyone. I will continue to raise the subject. In fact, I have in my briefcase a dog tag with the six names of those who are missing. That two of those have been returned dead is no satisfaction. The fact that their fate is now known is in a way a relief to the loved ones, but it is quite terrible that the fate of those who are still missing is unknown. It is possible that Ron Arad is still alive. We will need to address the matter and constantly raise it with all those who might have influence.
In the context of the middle east, I might also add that the situation of any people who are missing in action must be resolved and information given. I think of course of the 600 Kuwaitis who are still missing in Iraq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising a humanitarian issue that needs to be resolved.
As I said, the Palestinian people require our economic assistance. I was proud to attend the Palestinian donors conference in Paris earlier this year. We are giving £ 87 million between 1994 and 1997.I believe that it is money well spent. Even the Israelis agree that a prosperous Palestine is a more peaceful Palestine.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference in March, such aid can draw away support from extremism fuelled by poverty. Much of it has helped to build up the Palestinian civil police. While that approach focuses on human rights concerns and good policing tactics, it helps to increase confidence among the Palestinian public in their Administration and contributes to the formation of a stable and forward-looking Palestinian democracy.
I would also like to speak briefly about Syria, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport raised. I recently visited Damascus. We greatly hope that the talks between Syria and Israel, which were suspended earlier this year, can be taken forward at an early opportunity. Syria remains central to the ultimate success of the middle east peace process and we welcome the fact that Mr. Netanyahu has said that he wants to resume those negotiations. Syria has made great progress away from confrontation with Israel and the west towards the search for a peaceful solution.
We also support the strengthening of Syria's links with Europe and welcomed its participation in the Barcelona conference last year. We hope that it will be possible to negotiate an association agreement between the European Community and Syria at an early opportunity, further developing trade and economic links. Very recently, we had a most successful day at the CBI discussing trade relations with Syria. Syria's greater integration into the

region and internationally is very important for the long-term stability of the middle east. It would be in no one's interest for Syria to be isolated.
Iraq continues to pose a serious threat to regional security. Saddam Hussein has shown quite clearly that he retains ambitions to dominate the area. We must ensure that he can never do so again and maintain pressure on Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations resolutions, including, as I mentioned, by accounting for all Kuwaiti and other prisoners of war. Until that happens, sanctions must stay in place.
It is particularly alarming that Iraq continues to obstruct the work of the UN Special Commission on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The commission's last report to the Security Council in April made clear that major gaps in its knowledge of Iraq's weapons programmes remain. Iraq's repeated obstruction, despite tough warnings from the Security Council, strongly suggests that Iraq is still trying to protect its weapons of mass destruction capability. Saddam's refusal to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions has cruelly prolonged the plight of the Iraqi people. To alleviate their suffering Britain co-sponsored Security Council resolution 986 which allows Iraq to sell £ 1 billion worth of oil every 90 days to purchase humanitarian goods. The resolution was adopted in April 1995; but, sadly, Saddam refused to implement it until May this year. We hope the Iraqi people will see the benefits very shortly.
We remain deeply concerned about Iranian ambitions in the middle east. We believe that its weapons of mass destruction programmes and ambitions are a major threat to regional security. We are not reassured by the Iranians' history of interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Their hostility to the middle east peace process, anti-Israeli rhetoric and support for Hezbollah is also deeply concerning.
Our friends in the Gulf recognise the threat posed by Iran. The recent arrests in Bahrain and elsewhere in the region of members of Hezbollah's small cells linked to Iran has served to highlight this problem yet again. Our Gulf friends will continue to have our full support.
Our own relations with Iran are conducted within the framework of the European Union's critical dialogue, established by the European Council in 1992 to engage Iran on key areas of concern: in particular its hostility to the middle east peace process, support for terrorism, weapons programmes, appalling human rights record and the continuing threat to Salman Rushdie's life. Our objective is to bring about an improvement in Iranian behaviour through sustained, concerted pressure. The council made it clear that progress in these areas would be important in determining the extent to which closer relations with Iran could be developed.
Some commentators underestimate the contribution made by the Gulf nations themselves to securing regional stability. As owners of nearly half the known oil reserves and situated in a volatile region— neighbouring Iran and Gulf states have delivered stability and a high level of development and prosperity to their citizens. These are no mean achievements. It is easy for people to scoff and say that oil wealth made such progress inevitable: I do not believe that to be true. We recognise that the amazing transformation which has been wrought in the Gulf on the back of oil wealth is a tribute to the Governments concerned.
Infrastructure has been created where none existed before: roads, hospitals, schools, water, power— the list goes on. There has also been investment in diversification, to prepare for the time when oil revenues decline. There has been a substantial record of achievement.
The Gulf states have also made a considerable contribution to regional security. The Gulf Co-operation Council is a symbol of their determination to maintain their independence in the face of any threats. Its military development, including the establishment of a common defensive force, the peninsula shield, continues to make progress. This Government strongly support the GCC, which has played, and continues to play, a vital part in maintaining regional peace and stability.
The GCC has also exercised a constructive influence through its foreign policy. Whether in terms of the middle east peace process, Iran or Iraq, the GCC has consistently sought to advance the cause of peace and stability. We may not agree on every last detail, although our policies are broadly similar. But we are in no doubt that the GCC should be commended for its responsible approach.
We have major trading interests in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is our largest market in the middle east and one of our largest outside the OECD. Our exports amounted to £ 1.6 billion in 1995 and continue to increase. Our trade with the United Arab Emirates is not far behind, at £ 1.2 billion in 1995. The remaining Gulf states also represent very significant markets. In total, 12 per cent. of the UK's exports outside the EU go to the Gulf. Tens of thousands of British jobs and hundreds of British businesses depend on this trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport dealt in particular with the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is one of our closest allies in the Gulf and we enjoy excellent relations. Following our withdrawal from the area formerly known as the Trucial states in 1971, we concluded a bilateral treaty of friendship which has remained the cornerstone of our co-operation to date.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the amazing transformation that has occurred in the UAE since 1971, largely due to the wise leadership of the Emirates sheiks, and in particular to President Zayed. There were some siren voices in 1971 who predicted that the UAE could never prosper as a cohesive entity, and that it would not be able to support itself. But those voices were silenced by the steady transformation of the small desert territories into modern oases of industry and commerce. The UAE now enjoys an enviable economic situation, with a GDP of around $18,000 per capita per annum, and a burgeoning infrastructure to support its population.
The UAE's success story goes beyond economics. Twenty-five years after its foundation, the federation now enjoys a permanent constitution, an active federal national council and intra-Emirate co-operation in a whole range of matters. Anyone who has visited the UAE— as I did last November— can appreciate the co-operation which binds the Emirates together while respecting their different traditions. As they approach the 25th anniversary of the founding of the federation, the UAE's leaders can be justifiably proud of their achievements to date.
Our bilateral links go far beyond trade— important as that is. The United Kingdom remains a favourite destination for Emiratis whom we welcome each year for business, leisure or health care. Around 30,000 Britons live and work in the UAE— including my stepbrother. This day-to-day co-operation rarely makes the headlines, but it is indicative of the health of our relations.
We also co-operate closely in defence matters. We understand the UAE's security concerns— notably the threat of aggression from Iran. We are concerned by the on-going dispute between the UAE and Iran over Abu Musa and the Tunbs islands, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred. As British Ministers have made clear before, we support the UAE's proposal to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice. We call on Iran to engage in constructive dialogue over the future of the islands, and to refrain from any actions which might alter the delicate status quo. Recent history in the Gulf has demonstrated that aggression finds no rewards and Iran would do well to listen to the message of history.
As with our other Gulf allies, we are co-operating with the UAE in the development of its military capability. We provide the UAE with loan service personnel working directly with the UAE armed forces. We are negotiating a defence co-operation agreement that would provide a framework for our existing defence co-operation. Although we have agreed on the majority of the text, we are working to finalise a number of points. As we work towards conclusion of the defence arrangement, our friends in the UAE can be in no doubt about our commitment to their security and that of the Gulf region.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to say a word to those who speak loosely of the threat from Islam against the west. This is nonsense. Islam has its extremists, as we do in the west. The Al-Khobar bombing was a salutary reminder of their existence. We must work together with our Islamic friends against this menace. Regional peace and tranquillity can only be preserved by a close partnership, and we have much in common.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Ten o'clock till Monday 14 October, pursuant to Resolution [22 July].